Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies in Matthew [microform]"

See other formats 


libraries 




STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



BY 
BENJAMIN W. BACON, D.D., Litt.D. (Oxon.) 

BUCKINGHAM PROFESSOR (EMERITUS) OP NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM 
AND EXEGESIS IN YALE UNIVERSITY 




NEW YORK 
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 



COPYRIGHT, 1930 

BY 
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY, INC. 



PRINTED IN THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



919508 



Dedicated to 
THE OXFORD SOCIETY OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY 

in grateful remembrance of the distinction 

of Honorary Membership conferred on 

the author in 1920. 



PREFACE 

THE present work may be taken as a substitute for Vol. II of the 
series of "Modern" commentaries on the Gospels projected more than 
twenty years ago. Vol. I appeared from the Yale University Press 
in 1909 under the title Beginnings of Gospel Story: A Historico-critical 
Enquiry into the Sources and Structure of Mk. Vol. II, entitled The 
Book of the Precepts of Jesus, a commentary on Mt prepared on the 
same plan as its predecessor on Mk, after completion in manuscript 
in 1917 was withdrawn from the Press because of complications 
arising from the greatly increased cost of printing. When circum- 
stances again made publication feasible, lapse of time had made 
mere revision insufficient. The decision was taken to abandon the 
more costly form and embody the main conclusions in a series of 
"Studies" permitting a combination of various types of observations 
on the Gospel, notes introductory, exegetical, and biblico-theological. 

Gospel criticism should logically issue in what is called for lack of 
better designation a Life of Christ. Real biography is of course out 
of the question where contemporary records do not exist and the 
career described covers little more than a single year. Nevertheless 
the title has been applied for a century and a half to works whose 
purpose was to inform the public of the results of historical study of 
the four Gospels and may serve broadly to define the ultimate aim of 
the present writer. 

For such a work three principal lines of enquiry are dictated by 
the nature of the sources. Indeed these themselves give evidence of 
the hunger of Christians of the earliest generations to know: (1) The 
story of Jesus' career as prophet and messianic leader up to his tragic 
fate in Jerusalem; (2) the nature and content of his message; (3) the 
permanent significance of his personality and work for the history 
and practice of religion. 

The first of these lines of enquiry leads us directly to the earliest 
extant gospel, hereinafter designated Mk because of its traditional 
ascription to John, surnamed Mark, 1 an associate of the Apostle 

1 In the present volume the abbreviations Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, are used to desig- 
nate the canonical Gospels and their compilers, without reference to the correct- 
ness or incorrectness of the tradition which declares them to be "according to" 
the Apostles Matthew and John, and the "companions of apostles" Mark and 
Luke; also without reference to the sense in which "according to" should be 
taken. When mention is made of the individuals "Mark," "Matthew," etc., 

vii 



viii PREFACE 

Peter, who is said to have gathered and translated surviving material 
from Peter's accounts of the sayings and doings of the Lord. 

The second conducts to a record of the teaching of Jesus no longer 
extant save as it may be reconstructed from extracts made by the 
canonical evangelists. Mt and Lk contain considerable sections not 
found in Mk which cannot have been derived by either from the 
other, but coincide even more closely in language than the sections 
which they independently derive from Mk. This "double-tradition" 
material, as it is still often called, has come to be known as Q (from 
the German Quelle= Source), although it is not itself the source, but 
only the most easily traceable factor of a lost work which we shall 
designate S, drawn upon independently by Mt and Lk to supplement 
Mk's deficiencies of teaching material. S cannot, of course, be fully 
reconstructed from Q alone, though the Q material shows enough of 
inner consistency to prove it derived by Mt and Lk from a single 
Greek document. Nevertheless with Q as a nucleus, carefully re- 
stricted use of two other available factors may enable us to form a 
fairly adequate idea of the nature and contents of S. 

The more important of these two additional factors for the recon- 
struction of S is the "single-tradition" material of Mt and Lk, that is, 
material found in Mt only or Lk only. This material peculiar to Mt 
or Lk will be designated P, or, if need arise to distinguish that of Lk 
from that of Mt, P mt and P Ik . Elements of P, both Matthean and 
Lukan, give evidence of derivation from the same document as Q. 
Parts of P are therefore included by many critics in their reconstruc- 
tions of S, though too often the same designation Q is employed both 
for factors included under the definition and factors conjecturally 
added. 

The other factor available for quarrying possible blocks of S is 
"triple-tradition" material, that is, elements which have passed from 
Mk into both Mt and Lk. For Mk may have also drawn from S, 
though for their narrative element Mt and Lk have usually preferred 
the source which in tradition bore the authority of Peter's name. 
" Triple-tradition " material already has the designation Mk. It needs, 
therefore, no separate symbol for parts ascribed to S. 

The distinction between Q and S is obviously important. To speak 
of the "double-tradition" material Q as if this factor alone could give 
us the lost source is misleading. The introduction of larger or smaller 
amounts of P or Mk material without separate designation is no less 
so. Worst of all is that prejudgment of the nature and contents of S, 
a source totally unknown before the nineteenth century, involved in 

the names will be printed in full. In quoted passages the abbreviations will be 
used, but with the endeavor in all cases to conserve the exact meaning of the author 
quoted. 



PREFACE ix 

references to it as "the Logia," or even "the Logia spoken of by 
Papias." 2 The symbols above proposed are intended to do away 
with such question-begging, ambiguous, and misleading terms. Q 
will here be used only of "double-tradition" material in strict accord 
with its usual definition: "coincident material of Mt and Lk not 
found in Mk." If Mk or P material is connected with Q in the at- 
tempt to form a true conception of the lost S it will come in under its 
own proper designation and for reasons stated. The nature and con- 
tent of S will not be prejudged by any attempt to apply to it terms 
which in their original employment were meant to apply to another 
writing. Let it be repeated. In the present work the two main syn- 
optic sources are designated Mk and S; the three classes of material 
encountered are designated P, Q, and R. 

The third line of enquiry leads to a different goal by a different 
approach. The fourth Gospel was ascribed by second-century fathers 
to the Apostle John, whom they surnamed the "theologian" from the 
opening words of its Preamble. Only in this late product of the 
Hellenistic Church has the ultimate question of religious values been 
placed in the foreground. True, the earlier three gospels, called Synop- 
tic from their dependence on a common outline, are also concerned to 
prove the authority of Jesus as a divine Redeemer; but they resort 
for proof to the apostolic record of the sayings and doings of the Lord. 
To this extent their motive is historical. Jn, contrariwise, subordi- 
nates history to doctrine. His version of the sayings and doings is a 
selected group of wondrous "signs" from the flood of less respon- 
sible report, for each of which he composes an appropriate doctrinal 
discourse, the whole work expounding the theory of a divine in- 
carnation: Jesus a manifestation of the eternal redemptive Spirit of 
God. 

The present writer has given his critical valuation and interpreta- 
tion of the Petrine-Markan record of the public ministry of Jesus 
in three volumes antecedent to this. In Beginnings of Gospel Story 
(Yale Press, 1909), 7s Mk a Roman Gospel? (Harvard University 
Studies VII, 1919), and The Gospel of Mk: its Sources, Structure and 
Date (Yale Press, 1926), a foundation has been laid. 

As respects the teaching of Jesus also a beginning was made by 
the little volume entitled The Sermon on the Mount (Macmillan, 1902), 
now left far behind by Marriott's work of the same title (1925). 

The third line of approach is represented in a full treatment of the 
history of the fourth Gospel from compilation to canonization under 
the title The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (Yale Press, 1910), 

2 See the protest of J. A. Robinson, Study of the Gospels, 1919, p. 69, and com- 
pare Appended Notes I and II on "The Date of Papias" and "The Meaning of 
the Term \6yia." 



x PREFACE 

though with too little attention to the historical valuation and in- 
terpretation of the Hellenistic form of the redemptive message. 

All these publications, with others similar, have their place in pre- 
paring for a comprehensive Life of Christ; for all three forms of the 
tradition have contributed, each in its own way, to the development 
of the faith. Those in most frequent use will be referred to in the 
present volume under suitable abbreviations. 3 

But all the present writer's contributions taken together fall short 
of constituting a proportioned series of preliminary studies. The 
series on Mk comes nearest to completeness, and has been sum- 
marized in the little volume The Story of Jesus: a Valuation of the 
Synoptic Record for History and Religion (Century Co., 1926). But 
this, as the subtitle makes clear, tells the story of the story. It is only 
an approach to the story of Jesus. As respects the Lukan writings 
reference can be made to the article "Le t6moignage de Luc sur lui- 
meme" in Revue d'histoire el de philosophie religieuses, VIII, 3 (Mai- 
Juin, 1928), together with some others on Acts; but proportionate 
preliminary study looking to a Life of Christ would demand a volume 
on the Second Synoptic Source based on critical comparison of the 
teaching material of Mt and Lk. Its fruit might be an appreciation 
of the inner life of Jesus not unlike that of W. E. Bundy called The 
Religion of Jesus (1928). This might serve to bring into truer per- 
spective the Lukan depiction of the great Teacher, far superior to the 
Matthean as it is, both historically and for sympathetic appreciation. 
But time and strength can hardly be expected for this task. A more in- 
dispensable preliminary is a rounding out of the work already done on 
the fourth Gospel, to demonstrate its contribution to the ultimate 
theme: The personality and work of Jesus in bridging the chasm 
between God and man. Were it possible to fill out these unfinished 
bits of construction one might feel better prepared to re-narrate 
the work and martyrdom of Jesus, suiting the story to an age as 
insistent upon historico-critical enquiry as determined upon religious 
revaluation. 

Life is too short for preparation on such a scale. Such brief working 
time as still remains must be given to the two volumes most indis- 
pensable to the scheme of approach: (1) The present Studies in Mt, 
which aim to clear the way for such appreciation of the great religious 
Teacher as can only be gained by placing the witness of Mt in right 
relation to the richer resources and more sympathetic touch of Lk; 
(2) A historico-critical analysis and interpretation of the fourth 
Gospel, to be expected in 1930 under the title The Gospel of the 
Hellenists. This study of Jn will aim to show its true place in the 
development of the religion about Jesus. 

3 See table, p. xxv. 



PREFACE xi 

For Christianity, as it issues from the maelstrom of oriental re- 
ligions of personal immortality which contended for the adhesion of 
the Graeeo-Roman world, is a blend of Jewish messianist apocalypse 
with Hellenistic doctrines of redemption by incarnation of a divine 
Messenger. In The Gospel of the Hellenists the present writer hopes 
to make up that which was lacking in The Fourth Gospel in Research 
and Debate. Thereafter, if time and strength are still available, the 
larger task may be undertaken of bringing into convergence the 
three specified lines of approach. Studies preparatory to a Life of 
Christ interpreting Jesus' brief career as Prophet and Healer, as 
messianic Teacher, Leader, and Martyr, as glorified Son of Man, as 
redemptive incarnation of the Spirit of God and eternal Lord, may 
well demand years of research. If after all the culminating task 
should be bequeathed unfinished to other hands, the preparation will 
not be regretted. Labor thus spent is its own richest reward. 

But the occasion for Studies in Mt is made urgent by two wide- 
spread and harmful preconceptions. Both are ultimately due to 
illusions of scholars, but one has behind it the accumulated inertia 
of fifteen centuries of unquestioning acceptance, the other of scarcely 
one. The popular illusion of apostolic authorship, if not for the canon- 
ical first Gospel itself, at least for some Aramaic Mt of which the 
Greek writing might be taken as a translation, has dominated the 
Church's belief for so long that even a unanimous verdict against it 
from all modern scholarship affects but few. Mt is still used and 
quoted by clergy and laity alike just as if it were a primary, or even an 
apostolic source, though known and (tacitly) acknowledged to be 
secondary. Mt continues today as in the second century to be the 
preferred source for all gospel quotations, even when the same pas- 
sage is found in Mk or Lk in more original and authentic form. The 
effect as regards the particular passage may be of small moment, 
but the general result of this indolent' acquiescence in a secondary, 
altered report when more reliable, unaltered witness is available, 
is deplorable. It commits to the public as the standard record of 
the life and teaching of Jesus a report which is known to be inferior, 
a form adapted to the special beliefs and needs of later times. This is 
a substitution which could not occur outside a Church which has in- 
herited something of the disposition of the scribes rebuked by Jesus 
for making the Scripture of none effect that they might keep their own 
tradition. 

The second prepossession which the present writer would do his 
part to dispel is more recent. It is an illusion of scholars which stands 
in the way of effective research for the most authentic record of the 
teaching of Jesus. We may call it the fallacy of the "Matthean 
Logia. " It had its origin less than a century ago in the theory of 



xii PREFACE 

Schleiermacher which applied to Q the statement of Papias in which 
he referred to our own first canonical Gospel as a compilation 
(o-wra&s) of the precepts of Jesus (TO, Aoyia) to the exposition of which 
his own work (c. 140) 4 was dedicated. The Gospel, then as now, 
was in Greek and of course bore, as now, the title "According to 
Matthew." Papias met the objection that the Apostle's language 
was "Hebrew" (that is, Aramaic) by affirming that the Gospel had 
originally been written in "Hebrew" but had been translated by some 
unknown Greek Christian. For, as he added, the custom had formerly 
been to give renderings of the precepts (not the Gospel) as they had 
been orally transmitted hi the language of Jesus. 

All scholars now admit the impossibility of Papias' having reference 
to, or direct knowledge of, any other Mt than our own. Some fol- 
lowers of Schleiermacher's view took refuge in the supposition that 
"the Elder," from whom Papias derived the tradition, might have 
meant a Proto-Mt, equivalent to Q, and been misunderstood by 
Papias. The answer that Papias does not profess to derive his state- 
ment regarding Mt from the Elder, and could not well have had it 
on this authority, had small effect. The notion still prevails that the 
second century preserved somehow, somewhere, the remembrance 
of a Proto-Mt having certain characteristics other than mere lan- 
guage to distinguish it from our own. This illusion, like Jerome's 
theory of similar origin in the fourth century of the "authentic He- 
brew, " began as a bit of scholastic theorizing, but has not yet released 
its hold. On the contrary, persisted in by many critics, it already 
percolates downward till numbers of intelligent readers begin to talk 
of Q as a recovered document and to apply to it the names "The 
Logia," "The Matthean Logia," and even "The Logia spoken of by 
Papias. " 

Q is not an illusion but a real discovery, and vitally important. 
But Q is not S. Q does represent a factor of common material by 
which Mt and Lk have independently supplemented the deficiencies 
of Mk on the side of teaching. It would be of much greater value to 
gospel critics and students of the Life of Christ if freed from the pre- 
conceptions of scholars eager to find ancient testimony to support 
their views. Unfortunately the temptation has proved in many cases 
too great. Papias was put upon the rack and a meaning he would not 
admit has been forced from his words. In reality nothing whatever 
is known of the authorship, character, or contents of S beyond what 
critics may derive, directly or indirectly, from Q. Reconstruction has 
now come to a temporary halt. Its results thus far are rightly char- 
acterized as "a heap of interesting ruins." What might have been 
known of S if the protests of Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Wernle, Loisy, and 

4 See Appended Note I, "The Date of Papias." 



PREFACE xiii 

others against the perversion of Papias had not fallen on deaf ears 
only the future can tell. When gospel criticism is no longer domi- 
nated by the ghost of Schleiermacher's dead theory it may be able to 
resume its progress toward the better understanding of the teaching 
of Jesus. 

The present volume has therefore a two-fold purpose. It appeals to 
intelligent students of the Gospels, who if aware of the unanimous 
verdict of scholarship for the priority of Mk and S have not adjusted 
their practice to it. The verdict may justly be called unanimous, for 
even Zahn, greatest of the few surviving champions of the ancient 
doctrine of the priority of Mt, holds to it only in the roundabout 
form proposed by Grotius: a lost Hebrew Mt the common source of 
our Synoptic Gospels, the canonical Mt standing to this X in the rela- 
tion of a translation whose language has been assimilated to Mk. 
This lost Mt naturally has all the qualities which pertained to the 
Princetonian lost inerrant Bible. It may not help the public, but it 
saves the face of mistaken apologists. 

A forced and belated admission is perhaps all that should be ex- 
pected when cherished illusions are dispelled. Yet the writer pleads 
for more. Tacit and reluctant assent has little beyond a negative 
value. It leaves new truth still an alien substance, an irritating for- 
eign body, encysted only because it could not be extruded. New light 
can break forth with difficulty from the Scriptures to minds thus dis- 
posed. The present volume is addressed to readers of greater faith. 
To them it offers opportunity for more careful study of that process 
of recasting which the gospel record has undergone, with the aim of 
distinguishing the primary testimony from later adaptation. Not that 
either should be disparaged, but each lend its own aid to reverent re- 
search. For appreciation of Mk and S as prior witnesses to the public 
career and teaching of Jesus should not make valueless the added 
witness of later adaptations which adjusted the story to the needs and 
beliefs of a post-apostolic age, an age deserving of our study, reward- 
ing to investigation by every resource at our command. 

A further purpose concerns the scholar's quest for sources. Again a 
double objective is in view. Study of method, means, and purpose of 
the redactor has a certain value for its reflection of his own age and 
environment, but its chief value is for the removal of obstacles to 
further research. Studies in Mt should tend to renew discouraged 
effort in the quest of Q. The P element in Mt as in Lk must be sifted 
for material of various value. In addition to editorial material (R), 
recognizable both from function and from well ascertained peculiar- 
ities of style and language, there are almost certainly considerable 
blocks of S which Lk failed to incorporate. Besides this we must allow 
for elements taken up from current oral tradition (0), and for a cer- 



xiv PREFACE 

tain element which is responsible for much of the debate about Mt 
since Jerome's time, and which might be derived either from oral or 
from written sources. It is an element very small in compass but 
highly distinctive in character. We shall give to it provisionally the 
designation N in the belief that its derivation, whether in oral or writ- 
ten form, is from that body of Nazarene Christians represented in the 
period of Apollinaris of Laodicea, Jerome, and Epiphanius by an 
Aramaic-speaking church in Beroea-Aleppo. Fragments transcribed 
by Jerome of a later Gospel of the Nazarenes are still extant, together 
with other readings in certain Mss. by scribes influenced by Jerome's 
theory under the marginal note "the Jewish" (TO 'louSai/cdv). 5 Our 
working hypothesis will be that just as these Mss. show contamination 
from the Aramaic source in the period after Jerome, so in the period 
before the final redaction of Mt a precanonical form of Aramaic gospel 
circulating in the same region had affected it by similar contamina- 
tion. The theory must be tested in our introductory discussions. 
The designation N calls for explanation at this point. 

The question of sources we confess to be our deepest interest in 
these Studies in Mt. For real advance toward the authentic teaching 
of Jesus it would be desirable, if time and strength allowed, to pre- 
pare such a volume on the basis of critical comparison of Mt and Lk as 
above proposed, this to be followed by a second volume applying to 
the resultant S the most approved methods of historical interpreta- 
tion. The whole might then be summed up in a survey of the teaching 
of Jesus on the plan of our "biblical theologies." 

A more practicable course is suggested by the structure of Mt itself, 
a course which limits attention for the present to this Gospel only. A 
half-century ago it was recognized that its compiler has followed the 
plan of aggregating his teaching material from all sources into five 
great discourses corresponding to the oration codes of the Pentateuch, 
each introduced, like the Mosaic codes, by a narrative section, each 
closing with a transition formula as the reader passes from discourse 
to narrative. To these five bodies of discourse Sir John Hawkins 6 
would apply the Hebrew term pereq, meaning "chapter" or "section." 
The lay reader will find it easier to think of them as "Sermons" in 
view of the first of the series, a discourse on the Righteousness of 
Sons, to which custom has applied the title "Sermon on the Mount." 
Prefixed to the first narrative section we find two loosely connected 
chapters relating the birth and infancy of Jesus from sources else- 
where unknown. This section, Mt 1-2, may most conveniently be 
designated the Preamble. Correspondingly after the last of the five 
discourses the transition formula leads over to three chapters (26-28) 

B See Appended Note VI, "Jewish-Christian Gospels in Relation to Mt." 
6 H. S., pp. 163 f. 



PREFACE xv 

of closing narrative relating the passion and resurrection. This envoi 
we may call the Epilogue. 

The five-fold division of Mt is no recent discovery, as we shall see. 
At first, after its recognition by critics, there was a disposition to regard 
it as a survival from some earlier composition. The five discourses 
were regarded by the veteran Godet as representing the Proto-Mt sup- 
posed to have been attested by Papias. In his Introduction to the New 
Testament (Vol. II, "Gospel Collection and St. Matthew," Engl. transl. 
1899, p. 182) Godet describes them and their method of composition. 

They have, he says, a historical basis, forming the beginning of the dis- 
course and connected with a well defined situation, a situation signalized 
in the same way in Mk and Lk; then the addition to this primitive nucleus 
of other materials, heterogeneous as regards the situation, but homogeneous 
as regards the matter. 

Godet further points out the "nearly identical formula of transi- 
tion" whereby after each of the five at 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1, and 
26:1 Mt resumes the thread of his story. He further quotes with de- 
served approval the five titles previously proposed by R&ville: (1) 
tKaioo-w^s, or Concerning Righteousness; (2) Ilepi T^S 
or Concerning the Apostolate; (3) He/at T^S /feo-tXcias, or 
Concerning the Kingdom; (4) He/at T^S IKKX^O-WIS, or Concerning the 
Church; (5) Ilept rrjs o-wreXetas rov aiwvos, or Concerning the Consum- 
mation of the World. 

Gpdet's idea of "the method of composition" of the discourses 
really fits only the first, the so-called Sermon on the Mount, which 
contains no Markan material, but is made up as described from 
several SQ discourses. It has since been abundantly proved that the 
other four rest on a Markan nucleus. In the words of Streeter, 7 "an 
analysis of every one of the Great Discourses yields evidence that it 
is an agglomeration put together by the editor of the Gospel." 

But the insight thus slowly gained into the structure of Mt, disap- 
pointing as it may be to those who hoped to obtain from it "the Logia 
spoken of by Papias," is nevertheless a discovery of great value, a 
discovery which may even find corroboration from antiquity. A 
Greek fragment first published in 1917 is fully described by Dr. 
Rendel Harris in Part II of his Testimonies (1920, pp. 90-94, 109- 
136), and applied in support of his theory that the Logia of Papias 
was a collection of messianic prophecies for the use of Christian apolo- 
gists. The fragment consists of six iambic verses apparently designed 
as a prologue to Mt after the plan of the so-called Monarchian Pro- 
logues, or the iambic verses quoted by Irenaeus from "a certain elder" 
(Melito?) who had thus defended "both testaments" against the 

7 F our Gospels, 1925, pp. 261-265. 



xvi PREFACE 

assaults of Marcion and Gnostic heretics. It describes "Matthew 
as writing against the Jews, from whose "deicide" strife all tt 
heresies are derived. 8 

To moderns, unacquainted with second-century polemics again* 
the Jewish sects as authors of all heresy, it may seem strange to reft 
to Mt as written to "curb the rash error of the Jews." To Zahn, 
scholar well qualified to define the outstanding characteristics of th 
Gospel, its "sharp attack upon Judaism as governed and misled b 
Sadducaic high priests and Pharisaic rabbis" is so prominent a fea 
ture of Mt as to lead him to the following italicized definition of th 
work: "an historical apology of the Nazarene and His Church ovt 
against Judaism." 9 There seems to be, therefore, no obstacle to r< 
garding the verses as coming from the age of the apologists, partici 
larly those who defended both Old and New Testament scriptui 
against the assaults of Marcion. But whatever the authorship or dat 
of the argumentum its immediate interest for us lies in its descriptio 
of the "bridle" placed by "Matthew" on Jewish-born heresy as 
work in "five discourses" (irevre Xoyois). 

With or without corroboration from ancient sources the discover 
of the "five discourses" or "Books" of Mt marks an epoch in th 
critical understanding and valuation of the work. It should be mad 
correspondingly prominent in attempts such as the present Studie 
to give the Gospel its historical position and value. Several impoi 
tant commentaries have appeared since that of Allen in the ICC series 
of which we need mention here only those of Plummer (1910) ani 
McNeile (1915). All of these take proper account of the structure 
feature of Mt which we have described. Needless to say, criticg 
analyses and introductions use it as fundamental. But somethin 
more appears to be needed to. convey to the public a realization tha 
Mt is a compilation of gospel teaching in five "books" from materia 
furnished mainly by Mk and S. 

8 The verses in question are given in a revised text by R. Harris in Testimoniei 
Part II (1920), p. 110 as follows: 

Marftwos etpyei rQv 'lovSalwv ffp&cros- 
"tiffirep 

"OffTK 



dvrderas ffvyKa.6ei\ev alpfoets- 
7&p aiiT&v T] Beonrbvuv epis. 

For transmission of text and critical discussion the reader is referred to D] 
Harris. The present writer adheres to the view expressed in his article, "Th 
Five Books of Matthew against the Jews" in The Expositor for Jan., 1918 (VII] 
85). On Melito and his Key to the Scriptures, see Euseb. H. E. IV, 26. The epithe 
"deicide" (0e6/o-ovos) occurs in its earliest known use in a fragment of Melito. 

9 N. T. Inlrod., Engl., 1917, sec. 55, p. 560. 



PREFACE xvii 

The arrangement of our Studies in Mt aims to meet this lack. 
To show the real structure of the work it will be divided into its 
seven parts: Preamble (chh. 1-2); Book I, subdivided into a Narra- 
tive A, introducing a Discourse B (chh. 3-4 and 5-7) ; Book II, simi- 
larly subdivided (A, chh. 8-9, B, ch. 10); Book III (A, chh. 11-12, 
B, ch. 13) ; Book IV (A, chh. 14-17, B, ch. 18) ; Book V (A, chh. 19-22, 
B, chh. 23-25); Epilogue (chh. 26-28). 

With this subdivision, designed to reflect the evangelist's structural 
plan, it will be convenient to employ a method of study which lays 
principal stress upon "introduction" as the most fruitful of modern 
lines of approach, but allows some room for others also. The line of 
exegesis will be represented by a new translation supplemented by 
marginal symbols and by spacing to differentiate sources from redac- 
tion. "Biblical" theology will be represented by discussions of the 
teaching of Jesus on the five themes presented by the evangelist in 
his agglutinated discourses. To these will be brought the light of 
the evangelist's tendencies as previously ascertained, as an aid to 
understanding the actual teaching of Jesus. 

For the details of this plan we refer the reader to our Table of Con- 
tents as a desirable help in judging to what extent our aim has been 
achieved, the aim of winning from Studies in Mt a closer approxima- 
tion toward a truly historical and adequate Life of Christ. 

"Destructive criticism" is the unflattering term which men often 
apply to the effort to break away incrustations of traditional belief 
from the heroic figure of Jesus. But if the process be attended with 
some measure of historical knowledge and some sympathetic apprecia- 
tion for the successive developments of religious faith it cannot fail 
to open some new vistas through the overgrowth of the centuries 
past. New light on that central figure is the tribute we desire to pay 
on this nineteen-hundredth return of "the acceptable year of the 
Lord." 

B. W. B. 
New Haven, January, 1930. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
TABLE OP ABBREVIATIONS xxv 

PART I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 

A. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 

CHAPTER I. THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN . . 3 

Papias our earliest record. His motive, environment, and meaning. 
Misapprehensions. The tradition contradicted by the internal evidence. 
Establishment of the doctrine of the Priority of Mk an accepted outcome 
of a century's study of the Synoptic Problem. Modern opinion on the 
relation of Mt to Mk. Theory of the survival of a primitive Mt criticized. 
"Targums" of the canonical Gospels in the second century. Their oral 
predecessors in relation to Mk and S. The provenance of Mt. 

CHAPTER II. THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION .... 24 

Illusions too must be accounted for. Zahn vs. the doctrine of a proto- 
Mt attested by "the Elder. " The question depends on indirect evidence 
from unacknowledged employments of Mt before the time of Papias. The 
title "According to Mt"; whence originated and in what sense. Ignatius 
and the Didache. The indirect external evidence looks to Antioch as the 
source of the title, but to regions beyond for the origin of the Gospel 
itself. 

CHAPTER III. ASCRIPTION TO "MATTHEW" AND EARLY DISSEM- 
INATION 37 

S when current, was not ascribed to the Apostle. The change from 
"Levi" to "Matthew" in Mt 9:9. Is it a "conceivable" basis of ancient 
conjecture? Possible alternatives. Consequences of the ascription. Sup- 
posed apostolic origin as a factor hi the dissemination of Mt. 

CHAPTER IV. STEPS TOWARD CANONIZATION .... 50 

Alleged council de recipiendis libris at Rome in 120. Possible source of 
the Syriac synchronisms. The controversy in Phrygia in 167 over the 
discrepancy between "Matthew" and Jn concerning the date of Easter. 
The evidences of conflict between Mt and gospels locally current in 
Phrygia and Italy as related to the question of dissemination and canon- 
ization. 

B. INTERNAL EVIDENCE 

CHAPTER V. (1) INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE . . 63 

Dependence on Mk implies a date "after the death of Peter and Paul. " 
Adaptation of the S parable of the Slighted Invitation to fate of Jerusalem, 
and of Mk 13 to a date after the Great Apostacy. Nearly contemporary 
with Lk. Possible indirect relations speak for post-Lukan origin. Relation 
to rabbinic Judaism of Johanan b. Zacchai and the Tannaim. Affinity 

xix 



xx TABLE OF CONTENTS 

with Christian writings of 90-100. Mk, Hb., and I Pt. reflect the age of 
persecution, Satan a roaring lion. Mt, Jas., Jude, Rev. 1-3, 1 and II Tim., 
Ti. reflect the age of moral lassitude and error. Satan a seducing serpent. 

CHAPTER VI. (2) STRUCTURE. USE OP MK . . . 80 / 

The five "Books" of Mt constructed by expansion of Mk, the supple- 
ments being mainly from S. The narrative section (A) in all save Book III 
mainly drawn from Mk, the discourse section (B) in all save Book I having 
also a Mk basis. Rearrangement, alteration, and supplementation of Mk. 
Comparison of Mt's motives and method with contemporary rabbinic 
"teachers" (Tannaim) and the later Gospel of the Nazarenes. 

CHAPTER VII. THE EXTENT OF Q 91 

Reconstruction of S from Q often vitiated by preconception. Hawkins' 
measurement of agreement criticized. Q material classed as doubtful. 
Limitation of Q, R, and O elements. Verbal similarity apart from study of 
R an insufficient basis of judgment. Mt's arrangement of material cate- 
chetic, Lk's biographic. Results of criticism of method for determining 
Mt's Q content. 

CHAPTER VIII. MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 105 

Limitation of subject. Method of R mt compared to R Ik . Mt's omissions 
partly deliberate partly involuntary. The Lukan L source unknown to 
Mt. Expansion of S in two directions, biographic (L and Lk) and gnomic 
(Mt). Character and motive of L. Development of the parable in L. 
Overlapping of S and L. If Lk uses both we have less ground for assum- 
ing a hypothetical M source. Why Mt fails to reflect material of the L 
type. Why so little trace of S in his Passion story. Endings of S and Mk. 

CHAPTER IX. MT'S ' SINGLE-TRADITION ' (P) MATERIAL . 120 

Four classes of P material. Their relative value for the biographer and 
for the critic. Parables of Hid Treasure and Costly Pearl assigned to S 
on inadequate grounds. Analysis of Mt 6:1-18 and 11:28-30. Use of 
Ecclus. by R mt . Hawkins on elements from Sin P mt . Parable types in 
Mt, Lk, and S. Dissatisfied Wage-earners the only parable of P mt likely 
to have been drawn from S. Estimate of alleged grounds for a source M. 
Freedom of R mt in his use of parable. His use of N. 

CHAPTER X. TRAITS OF THE REDACTOR 131 '/ 

R a "converted rabbi. " His aim and method. General characteristics 
of style agree with special peculiarities of diction. Stereotyping of phrases. 
Favorite expressions. Mt's command of Greek. Use of LXX La Scripture 
quotations compared with S and N. Criticism of Hawkins' data of char- 
acteristics of phrases and locutions. Inferences of Hawkins and von 
Dobschiitz. An example in application. 



PART II. SPECIAL INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER XL THE PREAMBLE. N AND R . . .145 

1. Recession of the Epiphany gospel. "Manifestation of the Son of 
God" in Paul, Acts, Mk 9, Q, and Mt-Lk. Motive of the prefixed section. 
Growing Hellenistic influence from Mk to Jn. Magi and Star in Mt vs. 
Shepherds in Lk. Mesopotamian influences in Mt. 2. N vs. R. Criticism 
of Soltau's theory. The N element not a gospel. Its unity depends on 



TABLE OF CONTENTS xxi 

attachment to a Petrine stem, but of type differing from L. Comparison 
with Ev. Naz. 

CHAPTER XII. THE FIRST BOOK OF MT .... 165 

Theme of the "book." Structure of Division A. Placing of Mt's Dis- 
course in Mk's story. Mk has made additions to primitive outline. His 
omissions. Mt's use of Mk 1-3. He shortens narrative, expands teaching 
element from Q. His apologetic supplements. Their affinity with Ev. 
Naz. Division B. Various types of material. P mt compared with Lk. The 
"New Torah" discourse distinguished from that on Filial Righteousness. 
An M source uncalled for. Other displacements by R of Q material. 
Polemic against False Prophets. Close of the Sermon. 

CHAPTER XIII. THE SECOND BOOK OF MT .... 187 

Its structure adapted to the Discourse. A Gospeller's Vade Mecum. 
Division A. Ten Mighty Works of Jesus not related as such but as exam- 
ples for the encouragement and instruction of missioners. Three groups 
and their several motives. Division B. Its materials and structure. 
The Mission in Galilee 9:35-10:15. Mt's supplements: (1) Warning of 
Persecution, (2) Encouragement to Fearless Martyrdom. Composite 
close. Adaptation of Book II to Church use. 

CHAPTER XIV. THE THIRD BOOK OF MT . . . 202 

Purpose and structure of the Book. Its theme taken from Mk 3:20-4: 
34. Formation of the Spiritual Israel. Division A. Relation of Mk to Q 
reversed. Content of the sources compels this. Both deal with the theme 
of Rom. 9-11; I Cor. 1:18-2:16, the Hiding of the Mystery from the 
spiritually blind and deaf; its revelation to babes. Nature and placing of Q 
material. Division B. Mt's expansion of Mk's Parables of the Kingdom. 

CHAPTER XV. THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT .... 218 

Mt 14-28 follows Mk seriatim. Slight use of Q accounted for. Mt / 
(against Lk) adopts both motive and material of Mk following Mk's ^ 
device of an Exilic and a Peraean ministry. Mt's modifications and 
("Petrine") supplements. Nazarene (?) solutions of the problems of 
church unity discussed in Acts. Division B expands the Markan dis- 
course on church administration. The complementary themes of unspar- 
ing devotion and mutual toleration. Pauline application of the principles 
of Jesus in the later period. 

CHAPTER XVI. THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT . . . . 236 

Division A again based on Mk. Traces of Q. Possible connection of S. 
The Jerusalem section. Two paragraphs show relation to S. Division B 
has for its nucleus the Doom chapter of Mk. L and Mk vs. Lk on the set- 
ting in S. The Woes on Scribes and Pharisees lead over to Warnings of 
Jerusalem's fate. Mt's two expansions (1) the Seven Woes, (2) the Ex- 
hortations to Watchfulness. Mt's motives and- resources. 

CHAPTER XVII. THE EPILOGUE 250 

A transcript of Mk's story of Passion and Resurrection with supple- 
ments. Traditions of Lukan and Jerusalem type excluded. Why this 
restriction? The apostolic Resurrection gospel of I Cor. 15:1-11. Its two 
groups and two-fold scene. Primitive controversy and the disruption of 
Mk's ending. Comparison of Mt 26-28 with L, Ev. Petr., and Ev. Hebr. 
Mt's "improvements" on Mk 14-16 and N supplements. Growth of the 
tradition since Mk. The "treasure" and the "earthen vessel." 



xxii TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PART III. TRANSLATION 

I. THE PREAMBLE. CHH. If 264 

The Genealogy and Virgin Birth, Ch. 1. Epiphany to Astrologers and 
Rescue from Herod. Settlement in Nazareth, Ch. 2. 

II. BOOK FIRST. DISCIPLESHIP 269 

Division A. Introductory Narrative. Chh. 3-4. 
John baptizes the people. Baptism, Vocation, and Testing of Jesus. 
He begins his work in darkest Galilee, calling four disciples. 

Division B. The Discourse. Chh. 5-7. 

Jesus blesses and charges his followers. The new Torah. Inward 
righteousness. Filial worship. Treasure in heaven. Self-judgment. False 
and true teaching. Rock-foundation. 

III. BOOK SECOND. APOSTLESHIP 280 

Division A. Introductory Narrative. Chh. 8 f. 
Three faith-healings. Exorcisms and Mighty works. More disciples 
called. A preaching circuit. 

Division B. The Discourse, 9:36-10:42. 

List of the twelve. Then- instructions. Encouragement to meet per- 
secutions. The reward for their kindly reception. 

IV. BOOK THIRD. THE HIDING OF THE REVELATION . . 288 

Division A. Israel is Stumbled. Chh. 11 f. 

Jesus and John. Judgment on the unrepentant. Pharisaic opposition. 
Blasphemy of the scribes. The demand for a sign. Spiritual kin. 

Division B. Teaching in Parables, 13:1-53. 

Parables before the multitude. Sower, Tares, Mustard-seed, and 
Leaven. Private exposition. Further parables to the twelve. 

V. BOOK FOURTH. CHURCH ADMINISTRATION .... 297 

Division A. Jesus and the Brotherhood. Chh. 14-17. 
The A gap6 in Galilee. The law of "clean" and "unclean." Cleansing of 
the heart by faith. The Agap6 in Perea. The revelation of the Christ 
and Vision of the Son of Man. An epileptic healed. 

Division B. The Discourse. Chh. 17:22-18:35. 
Avoiding occasions of stumbling. Reconciliation of brethren. The 
duty of forgiveness. 

VI. BOOK FIFTH. THE JUDGMENT . . . . . . 308 

Division A. Jesus in Judea. Chh. 19-22. 

Teachings on the way to the cross. Divorce. The childlike spirit. The 
commandments of life. Reward for renunciation. The last first. The 
reward of martyrdom. Triumphal entry to Jerusalem, purging of the 
temple and challenge from the Sanhedrin. Jesus' answer in parables. De- 
bates in the temple. 

Division B. Discourse on Judgment to Come. Chh. 23-25. 

Woes on scribes and Pharisees. Wisdom's Lament for God's people and 
dwelling. Doom of Jerusalem. Revelation of the coming catastrophe, 
birth-pangs of the Christ, the Great Tribulation, the Coming to Judg- 
ment. Be Watchful. The Consummation. Parables of the Coming. 
Wisdom and Folly, Entrusted Funds, Judgment of the Son of Man. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS xxiii 

VII. EPILOGUE 326 

The plot to kill Jesus. The Farewell Supper. Gethsemane. Trial be- 
fore Caiaphas. Trial before Pilate. Crucifixion. Burial, resurrection, and 
apostolic commission. 

PART IV. THEMES 

THEME I. THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW . . 339 

Comparison practicable between Mt's view and historic fact. Q nucleus 
of the First Discourse. Jesus' teaching on Filial Righteousness. Its occa- 
sion and elements. Agreement with the historical situation and conditions 
as shown by Mk and Q. Agreement with other records of Jesus' life and 
teaching. Mt's additions to the teaching. Q discourses on Abiding Wealth 
and Prayer. Further discourses. Scribal ethics. Pharisaic worship. Mt 
on Jesus and the Law compared with Mk and other reports. Mk is anti- 
Jewish, Mt anti-scribal. Underlying principle thp. Hiaf.infit.ippjTflihwflon 
divine and human law. Appeal to IsaiahTPaul, Mk, and Mt7m~pr;P 
cepT"Df men." Book religion in Jn 5:30-47. The real standpoint of Jesus. 

THEME II. THE APOSTOLATE 361 

Both Divisions of Book II exhibit the same dominant motive. Gospel- 
lers must have (a) "mountain-moving" faith; (b) all-enduring courage. 
The change of emphasis from Mk to Mt. Primary principle in S and 
modification in L. Mt represents a third stage. The right to support. 
Abuse and regulation. Endurance of persecution specially emphasized. 
The Great Tribulation soon to end with the Coming of the Son of Man. 
The evidential value of the faith-wonder. 

THEME III. THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY . 375 

Israel's prerogative as hierophant for the world. Its complement a 
"hiding of the mystery." Application of the doctrine in Pauline apolo- 
getic. Mk's adaptation of this and its development by Mt. Division A 
of Book III gives the S development of the theme. Israel spiritually 
blind and deaf. Division B gives the development of Paul and Mk: the 
parables riddles intelligible only to the elect. Teachings of Jesus behind 
these two types of apologetic. Jesus' doctrine of the Spirit. His parables 
of the kingdom. 

THEME IV. THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY . . . 397 

Mt again depends on Mk. Division A called for no rearrangement of 
the narrative, partly because of identity of motive, partly for lack of ,/ 
non-Markan material. Pragmatic aim of Mk's grouping. The Church's 
peril of disruption in the apostolic age. Lk's method of dealing with the 
theme. Mk's method. Mt's improvement on Mk. The spirit of Jesus 
essential to unity. Hence Division B: Quarrel for precedence. Mk con- 
tends for Toleration. Mt on Forgiveness and Church administration. 
Paul counsels the "spiritual" in his Epistles. How to "gain the brother." 
Restoration of the Lost Sheep. Rules of Church procedure. The Unfor- 
giving Servant. 

THEME V. THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 412 

Apocalyptic propensities of Mt. Comparison with Jn. The Son of Man 
doctrine in primitive preaching. Its use by Jesus. The prophetic and 
apocalyptic ideals compared. Judgment by the Son of Man universalizes 



xxiv TABLE OF CONTENTS 

judgment by the Son of David. Effect of the resurrection faith on apos- 
tolic preaching. Jewish apocalypse vs. Hellenistic mysticism. Jesus 
as Jewish patriot. His "covenant" at the farewell supper. Prophetic 
ideal of the Shemoneh Esreh. Mt's fifth Book culminates in the Judgment 
of the Son of Man. Modern conceptions of moral retribution compared 
with apocalypse. Our problem to translate the prophetic ideal of Jesus 
into terms of modern thought. Apocalypse a cruder form of universaliza- 
tion; but we have a higher example in that of Hellenistic mysticism in 
Paul and John. 



PART V. APPENDED NOTES 

PAGE 

NOTE I. The Date of Papias 439 

II. Meaning of the Term A67ia 443 

III. Mt and the Anti-Marcionite Prologues 452 

IV. The Little Apocalypse in Mk and Mt 467 

V. Scripture Quotations in S 470 

VI. Mt and the Jewish-Christian Gospels 478 

VII. Matthean Greek and the N Factor 496 

VIII. The Four-document Hypothesis 505 

IX. The Leaven of the Pharisees 511 

X. Addenda 519 

INDEX I. Patristic References 527 

INDEX II. Subjects and Authors 529 



ABBREVIATIONS 

GOSPELS, MATERIALS, AND SOURCES 

GOSPELS, CANONICAL AND POST-CANONICAL 

Canonical 

Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn= Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, respectively 

Post-canonical 

Ev. Hebr. Gospel according to the Hebrews 
Ev. Naz. = Gospel according to the Nazarenes 
Ev. Petri Gospel according to Peter 

Classes of Material 

P= Peculiar, or "single-tradition" material (Sondergut) 
Q=" Double-tradition" material (not in Mk) 
R=Redactional, i.e., editorial material 

Conjectural Sources 

S= Second Source (based on Q) 
L=Proto-Lk, or Lukan Special Source 
M= Proposed Proto-Mt 
N=Nazarene targum 
O= Oral tradition 

Combinations of symbols such as P mt , R lk , are usually self-ex- 
planatory, S p , S q , and S 1 ^, indicate that texts thus designated are 
referred to the Second Source on the evidence of single tradition, 
double tradition) or triple tradition, respectively. 

Modern works frequently employed 

BGS Beginnings of Gospel Story, by B. W. Bacon, 1909. 

Btr. I, II, etc. .Harnack, Beitr&ge zur Einl. in d. N. T. 

I. Lukas der Arzt, 1906, Engl. tr. 1907, II; Spruche 
u. Reden Jesu, 1907, Engl. tr. 1908, etc. 

Comm Commentaries on Mt by Allen, Klostermann, Mc- 

Neile, Micklem, Plummer, Robinson, Strack- 
Billerbeck, Weiss, Wellhausen, Zahn, and others. 

DB. . . Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, 1898-1904. 

DCG Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 1906-08. 

XXV 



xxvi ABBREVIATIONS 

EB Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1899-1903. 

FG The Four Gospels, by B. H. Streeter, 1925. 

GHD The Gospels as Historical Documents, by V. H. Stan- 
ton, vols. i-iii, 1903-19. 

GHTr The Gospel History and its Transmission, by F. C. 

Burkitt, 1911 3 . 

GM The Gospel of Mark. Its Composition and Date, by 

B. W. Bacon, 1925. 

HS Horae Synopticae, by Sir J. C. Hawkins, 1899, 1909 2 . 

HThR Harvard Theological Review. 

ICC The International Critical Commentary. 

Intr Introductions to N. T. Literature by Bacon, Moffatt, 

Zahn (Engl. tr. 1917) and others. 

JBL The Journal of Biblical Literature. 

JThS The Journal of Theological Studies. 

KG Kanongeschichte, by Theo. Zahn, 1890. 

OS Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem by Hawkins, 

Streeter, Allen, Bartlet, and others. Edited by 
W. Sanday, 1911. 

QL Quellen des Lukas, by B. Weiss, 1907. 

SF Die Synoptische Frage, by P. Wernle, 1899. 

SM The Sermon on the Mount, by B. W. Bacon, 1902. 

ZNW Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 



PART I 

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL 
A. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE 



CHAPTER I 
THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 

TRADITION as to the origin of the first Gospel of our canon is re- 
flected for the first time in the work of Eapias, bishop of Hierapolis in 
Phrygia, composed about 140 A.D. 1 under the title Exposition of the 
Lord's Grades (K.vpia.Kwv XoytW e^yiycrts). 2 This was Papias' only 
writing, a five-chaptered reply to the "vain talk" of the many 
and the "alien commandments" of the false teachers complained of 
by his older "comrade" Poly carp of Smyrna, and by other church 
writers of the period. 3 It was based on "traditions of John" and 
other "elders" who could report "words of apostles." These tradi- 
tions Papias had gathered through his lifetime and long treasured in 
memory. Some, he seems to imply, were obtained by himself directly 
from the apostolic group in Jerusalem known as "the elders, the 
disciples of the Apostles, " others had come to him indirectly through 
the daughters of Philip the Evangelist (three of whom lay buried with 
their father at Hierapolis) and through travellers who had "come his 
way," and whom he had questioned as to what was being said by 
" Aristion and John, " the then surviving members of the group. 

Aristion is totally unknown. 4 The "elder" John, clearly distin- 
guished as such from the apostle of the same name mentioned by 
Papias just before, may be the "John" of Jerusalem, seventh in the 
group of Jerusalem "elders" the "successors (StaSo'xoi) of the Apos- 
tles, " 5 whose death is placed by Epiphanius in the last year of Tra- 
jan (117 A.D.). 

The preface (?r/)oot/xtov) of Papias' book stated his purpose in 
writing as paraphrased above. It also stated his qualifications for 
giving to the "commandments delivered by the Lord to the faith" 
their true meaning. His authority lay in his accumulated store of 
"traditions of the elders, " which he considered for this purpose "more 
profitable than books" (he writes shortly after the publication of a 
work by Basilides, the celebrated Gnostic heretic of Alexandria, in 
twenty-four chapters of "Exegetics" based on the Gospel of Lk). 

1 See Appended Note I, "Date of Papias." 

2 Strictly "Of the Interpretation (or Interpretations) of the Lord's Oracles 



Five Books" (tfry-fiffeias, al. ifryfaeuv, 4). 

3 Ep. of Polycarp, vii. I Tim. 6:3 f, 20 f; Ti. 1:10-16. 

4 See Bacon, s.v. "Aristion" in Hastings' DCG. 

6 Thus referred to by several post-apostolic writers; cf. Acts 15:22; 21:18. 

3 



4 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Several examples survive, quoted by Irenaeus and others, to show the 
nature of this "living and abiding voice" which Papias, like the 
church writers of the generation following, set over against the 
"books" of outsiders, false teachers who merely gratified an idle 
curiosity of the multitude when they did not "pervert the oracles of 
the Lord to their own lusts, " as Polycarp complains. 

Papias, like Polycarp, particularly resented the Greek tendency 
to "deny the (bodily) resurrection and (apocalyptic) judgment." 
It is probably for the reason that he wished especially to con- 
fute by well authenticated tradition these two misrepresentations 
put forth by the false teachers that he places together, at the 
end of his enumeration of the apostles whose "traditions" he 
quoted, "Matthew," whose "compend of the oracles" (O-WTO.&S TON/ 
AoytW) was his prime reliance for these, and "John," whose Revela- 
tion he championed as "worthy of belief" (d^cmo-ros). This involved 
apostolic authorship; for the book based its message to the churches 
of Asia concerning the "resurrection and judgment" on an alleged 
divine communication received by the martyred apostle "in the 
Spirit" on the Island of Patmos (Rev. 1:9-1 1). 6 

Debate raged for more than a century after Papias over this claim 
of apostolic authorship for the Apocalypse of John. The question is 
indeed important for the understanding of Papias and his times, but 
may be disregarded in our present enquiry. The moral issue was re- 
garded as more immediately pressing and turned largely on the true 
meaning of the Lord's words (I Tim. 6:3). These in Papias' time are 
no longer referred to as mere "words," but being "commandments 
delivered by the Lord to the faith" (c/. Jn 14:21; 15:10; Mt 28:20; 
Ignatius ad Eph. ix, 2), and "derived from the truth itself" like the 
commandments uttered from Sinai, are called, like the Mosaic, "ora- 
cles." 7 

It is very important to observe that Papias' enquiries were di- 
rected toward obtaining light on the meaning of the accepted "ora- 
cles, " not toward collecting unknown sayings, a pursuit which could 
scarcely rise above the level of the "vain talk" and the "alien com- 
mandments" which he deplored. Among the "books" he deemed of 
relatively small value we can imagine him as including the Gospel of 
Lk (which Basilides had treated as "the" Gospel), or the Gospel of 
Jn, which he seems to have known but does not mention. More 
probably his disregard of these later Gospels is due simply to his full 

6 On the true application of the fragment commonly used as a testimony to the 
fourth Gospel, see the present writer's articles "Latin Prologues to the Fourth 
Gospel" (JBL, XXXII, 3, 1913) and "Marcion, Papias and the Elders" (JThS, 
Jan., 1922). See also Appended Note III. 

7 See Appended Note II, "Meaning of the Term Logia." 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 5 

reliance on Mt, which contained, as he believed, the complete, au- 
thentic, and properly "ordered" teaching of the Lord, committed 
to writing by one of the Twelve. His sole concern was "the command- 
ments delivered. " As we shall see, he felt at liberty to make some use 
also of the "sayings and doings of the Lord" recorded by Mark from 
his recollections of the preaching of Peter; but for such resort to an 
authority not directly apostolic he feels it needful (much to our ad- 
vantage) to advance special reasons. Mt, for Papias (and apparently 
for his readers as well), is the standard, unquestioned, complete, 
authoritative, apostolic "compend of the Lord's commandments." 
It does not occur to him that it needs defense or authentication any 
more than contemporary rabbis would think of authenticating the 
Torah of Moses. 

This explanation of Papias' environment, motive, and attitude 
toward his sources is made needful by certain current misapprehen- 
sions. Modern writers are prone to speak of Papias' preference for 
oral as against written sources as if he could be guilty of the folly of 
paying more consideration to second- or third-hand report of the ut- 
terances of Jesus, transmitted orally, than to a written record which 
he believed to be from the hand of an apostle! 

Almost equally surprising, considering the eminence of its source, 
is Streeter's extraordinary impression that Papias "disparages" (!) 
Mt. 8 This seems to stand connected with a view, perhaps derived 
from Wernle, that the criticism of the "order" of Mk is based on that 
of Jn (a gospel which Streeter attributes to the Elder John). This 
view predates by some forty years the rise of controversy concerning 
Johannine vs. Synoptic "order." Papias apologizes for Mk's lack of 
"order" precisely because Mk so obviously conflicts with Mt on this 
point. He cites authority for his use of Mk, with full explanation 
of Mk's deficiencies, for the very purpose of forestalling objections. 
Peter, whose follower Mark had been, "had no design of making 
an ordered compend of the oracles (O-WTO&S TO>V AoytW), /but related 
sayings and doings of the Lord as occasion required (wpos rty xpeiai/)." 
Thus Mark, when Peter's personal witness was no longer accessible, 
could do no more than record faithfully what he had heard. Matthew, 
however, had made the required compend (owera&v TO. Adyta) in 
proper order. Lk and Jn are entirely unmentioned. 

We come thus to Papias' reference to his standard compend of the 
"oracles" he proposes to interpret, a brief statement because unchal- 
lenged save on the obvious point that the compend was in Greek, 
whereas the language of its alleged author had been "Hebrew." 
Whether Papias' statement came before or after that defending his 
supplementary use of Mk, Eusebius, who makes the extract, does not 

8 FG, p. 19. 



6 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

tell us. Its content indicates that the two are at least interrelated. 
Papias shows what was current and uncontradicted belief in his time 
concerning our first Gospel in the following sentence: "Matthew 
compiled the oracles in the Hebrew tongue but every man translated 
them (avrd) as he was able." 9 

A discussion of the Papias fragment concerning Mk will be found 
in GM, pp. 22 ff. with incidental treatment of that concerning Mt. 
The latter is central to the discussion in my article "Why 'According 
to Matthew' " in The Expositor for October, 1920 (VIII, 120). Here 
only the central facts need be stated. 

If, previous to 140 A.D., there had been dispute regarding the 
apostolic authorship of Mt no intimation of the fact appears in Pa- 
pias. He is concerned only with the question of translation. He can- 
not, as in the case of Peter's "reminiscences," give the name of any 
individual whose translation could be regarded as specially author- 
ized. But he makes the admission not unwillingly because it only 
enhances the value of his own "Interpretations" (Ip/wp/euu). In 
former times it had been the custom for preachers to give their own 
rendering of the "oracles," some better, some worse. Those now 
given by Papias himself have the support of the living and abid- 
ing voice of apostolic tradition. His readers, whose mother-tongue 
is Greek, are naturally referred to the Greek Mt. (All his logia 
which survive are in fact based on Mt.) Papias expects his own 
"interpretations" to be preferred to those of "alien" interpreters 
not because he is a better linguist but because of his access to the 
indigenous and continuous tradition of the Church. Such is the 
simple statement regarding Mt deemed sufficient by Papias' con- 
temporaries, coupled with his own explanation of the difference in 
language. 

j Amplification sets in almost at once, after the manner of traditions, 
! j supplying new details. From the last decades of the same century 

^ writers begin to specify the date. Irenaeus avers that the Gospel was 
_ composed "while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the 

1 church at Rome." Later writers aim to be more- exact and at the 

* same time to give the Gospel greater antiquity. It was written on 
occasion of the dispersal of the Twelve from Jerusalem by the persecu- 
tion of Herod Agrippa I, "twelve years" after the Ascension (42 
A.D.). This was a favorite epoch with the earliest church writers. 
Matthew, it was said, in departing from Jerusalem with the other 

9 Marftuos p.lv oSv 'JS/SpalSi Sta^KTy rb. X<5yia ffwerdj-aro (al. ffweypdiffaro) , ^p^vevye 
5' ddrd cbs ?)v Swarbs 2/ca<rTos. The oBi/ resumptive shows that the immediately pre- 
ceding sentence had dealt with some less closely related subject. The ptv, 5t brings 
into contrast the recording in "Hebrew" with the rendering in Greek. The 
object of the verb is not the Gospel, but the "oracles," whether contained or 
not contained in the writing. 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 7 

survivors of the Twelve, left behind him with his disciples as compen- 
sation for his absence this record of the Lord's life and teaching. 

We need not delay with the later amplifications. As Irenaeus con- 
fessedly draws from Papias, and as later writers merely develop the 
same belief, it is enough to take it in its earliest known form and test 
it by the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. Fortunately this proc- 
ess of testing has been so thoroughly performed, with such uniform- 
ity of general result that we need only record here by a few extracts 
the verdict of representative scholars. 

Criticism exhibits an extraordinary contrast in the attitude it has 
been slowly driven to assume toward the two declarations of Papias, 
(1) his utterance regarding Mk, in which he defends his resort to a 
non-apostolic gospel by citing the opinion of "the Elder," and (2) his 
utterance regarding Mt, for which he seems to consider authentica- 
tion needless. Modern criticism was at first slow to accept the state- 
ment regarding Mk, but has gradually come to admit that in sub- 
stance it is surely correct. Less and less do we hear of the pleas for a 
possible proto-Mk better meeting the implications of the Elder's 
words. When carefully considered in the light of second-century 
interests the Elder's cautious commendation of Mk appears to be 
exactly what we should expect from one of the group of "elders the 
disciples of the Apostles" when applied to for a valuation of the 
Roman Gospel. 10 It was known to Justin, Roman contemporary of 
Papias, as "Memorabilia ('ATro/iv^oveij/taTa) of Peter" with the sub- 
title "According to Mark." The Elder endorses this belief with cer- 
tain reserves. Modern criticism does the same. 

Just the opposite has been the fate of the tradition which Papias 
gives without reference to any authority as undisputed current 
opinion regarding the first Gospel. Modern critics were at first almost 
unanimous hr endorsing his statement regarding Mt. It had in its 
favor, to start with, the whole weight of fifteen centuries of undis- 
puted acceptance. When questions at last began to be raised u it 
was defended ardently by the greatest New Testament scholars rep- 
resenting by far the most influential school of criticism. Yet today it 
has scarcely a single defender in its original form. A modified form 
almost tantamount to rejection is still defended by one, a veteran of 
ninety years, seconded by a handful of allies. 12 

Challenge to the ancient belief in the priority of Mt came first as 
a result of enquiry into the literary relation between the first three 

10 See GM, pp. 22-49. 

11 Erasmus seems to have led the way. 

12 Zahn's views appear to be shared by Schlatter and Dalman. See Appended 
Note VII. 



8 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Gospels, or the "Synoptic Problem," for the solution of which the 
first important theory advanced was that of Griesbach, wherein this 
eminent philologist sought to prove "that the whole Gospel of Mk 
is extracted (decerptum) from the writings of Mt and Lk." Speaking 
of the publication of this theory in 1790 Moffatt in his well known 
Introduction (1911, p. 177) declares it the "unlucky and prolific 
dandelion, which it has taken nearly a century of opposition (led by 
Storr, Knobel, Lachmann, Wilke, Weisse, B. Weiss, Holtzmann, 
Weizsacker, and Wendt) to eradicate." Griesbach had indeed the 
whole weight of ancient opinion in his favor. He obtained the adhe- 
sion of the Tubingen scholars, the most important group of New 
Testament critics during the first half of the nineteenth century. 
Only by slow degrees, some of the most important contributions com- 
ing from Tubingen itself, was Griesbach's theory shown to be false 
as respects both Mt and Lk. These gospels are indeed in close 
literary affiliation with Mk, but the supposed relation must be re- 
versed. Both draw from Mk, but the dependence of Mt is much closer 
and more complete than that of Lk, and hence is easier to prove. 

In the list of great names cited by Moffatt perhaps the greatest is 
H. J. Holtzmann, whose Synoptische Evangelien (1863, pp. 15-126) 
clearly established this dependence. But we may add a few more 
\ recent names because of the basic nature of the issue, and because the 
; strong resistance encountered has led modern scholars to a more com- 
plete and exhaustive treatment of the question than could otherwise 
have been expected. 

One of the earliest and most notable was that of Scholten, whose 

i patient investigation of every aspect of the question, including study 

j of the editorial method of Mt and of his apparent motive in every 

variation from Mk as respects order, omission, addition, and change, 

appeared first in Dutch in 1868 and the following year in German 

translation under the title Das Aelteste Evangelium. We would refer 

the reader especially to pp. 14-178. 

Passing over many of less thorough quality, or less specifically 
directed to our immediate question, mention should especially be 
made of Wernle's Synoptische Frage (1899), of which pp. 109-195 
deal more specifically with the relation of Mt to Mk, the whole ques- 
tion being covered in the same methodical and exhaustive manner as 
by Holtzmann and Scholten, but with greater conciseness. 

English scholars were not less patient, and perhaps excelled in dis- 
interested devotion to the clear testimony of the facts alone. The 
first edition of Sir John C. Hawkins' Horae Synopticae appeared one 
year earlier than Wernle's Synoptische Frage, presenting a simple tab- 
ulation of all relevant data. A second edition was required in 1909 
because the faithfulness to fact of the scholarly author had meantime 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 9 

made his book indispensable to every thorough student of the ques- 
tion. The special "statistics and observations bearing on the origin 
and composition of each Gospel," particularly Mk and Mt, will be 
found on pp. 114-168 of the second edition. 

In 1903 appeared the first of the three successive volumes of the 
monumental work of the late Canon V. H. Stanton of Cambridge 
entitled The Gospels as Historical Documents. Volume I dealt with the 
external evidence, or "the use of any of the Gospels in the sub-apos- 
tolic age." Its data therefore may be reserved for our discussion of 
the process of canonization. Volume II appeared in 1909, and dealt 
(on pp. 30-44 and 323-327), with that element of the problem which 
more immediately concerns us now, the dependence of Mt and Lk on 
Mk. "This thesis," says Stanton, "which is now one of the most 
widely accepted results of modern criticism of the Gospels, cannot 
claim support, it must be admitted, either from early tradition or 
from long prescription." Following this statement (on p. 30), Stanton 
proceeds to show why it has, nevertheless, "increasingly commended 
itself to students of the Synoptic problem during recent years." 

Reference to these detailed demonstrations of the priority of Mk 
might perhaps be dispensed with were it not for the continued resist- 
ance of one of the greatest scholars of our time, Theodore Zahn of 
Erlangen, a veteran well designated "the prince of conservative 
critics." 13 It is with particular reference to Zahn's championship of 
the ancient tradition of the priority of Mt, in the modified form given 
it by Hugo Grotius, that we cite in addition the judgment of more 
recent scholars, of whom several are not less noted than Zahn for 
their opposition to all innovation. 

The scholar must indeed either renounce entirely the right to judge 
of ancient writings by their form and content, or else admit that Mt 
is not a translation from any other language, but originally composed 
in Greek. Schlatter himself admits this. Even Zahn, as we have seen, 
admits the dependence of our canonical Greek Mt on Mk. . The 
general verdict of scholarship asserts in addition that Mt is not the 
composition of an apostle or other eyewitness, but a relatively late 
compilation, dependent for its entire narrative outline after the Pre- 
amble upon our own Greek Mk, nearly all of which it takes up in 
shortened and adapted form dependent also for the better part of 
its further material upon a Greek document shared by Lk which we 
have designated S, 14 dependent for the very little it further adds 

13 See his Introduction (Engl. transl. by Jacobus 1917), sections 54-57, espe- 
cially pp. 601 ff. As noted above the views of Dalman and Schlatter resemble 
Zahn's on this point. Schlatter's volume Der Evangelist Matthaus (1929) is con- 
sidered in Appended Note VII. 

14 See Preface. 



10 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

upon certain material designated N, which (whether oral or written 
when taken up) is of highly apocryphal and legendary type, recalling 
the fantasies of Jewish haggada, or the late legends of the Infancy 
Gospels. 15 

The grounds on which this general conviction of the Priority of 
Mk is based have been recently summed up by Canon Streeter (FG) 
in his chapter on "The Fundamental Solution": 

(1) Mt reproduces 90% of the subject matter of Mk in language very 
largely identical with that of Mk; Lk does the same for rather more than 
half of Mk. 

(2) In any average section which occurs in the three Gospels the ma- 
jority of the actual words used by Mk are reproduced by Mt and Lk, 
either alternately or both together. 

(3) The relative order of incidents and sections in Mk is in general 
supported by both Mt and Lk; where either of them deserts Mk, the 
other is usually found supporting him. 

In addition to these reasons from (a) content, (b) wording, (c), order, 
Streeter proceeds to show: 

(4) The primitive character of Mk as respects both form and content. 

(5) The distribution of Markan and non-Markan material in Mt and 
Lk respectively, which "looks as though each had before him the Markan 
material in a single document. " 

The reader need only verify the evidence in the pages occupied with 
Canon Streeter's fuller exposition of this outline, or, failing such per- 
sonal verification, note the tenor and authority of the pronounce- 
ments cited below, to understand why the priority of Mk is commonly 
spoken of today as the settled verdict of New Testament scholarship. 
For present purposes we may limit our survey to the representative 
Commentaries on Mt which have appeared in English since the publi- 
cation of Zahn's Introduction. Of these one of the most conservative 
is the ICC of W. C. Allen (1907), which offers on p. Ixxx of the Intro- 
duction an implied judgment of Zahn's theory. Speaking of the an- 
cient tradition "to the effect that the first Gospel was written by 
Matthew the toll gatherer and Apostle in Hebrew" Allen notes that 

J)the necessary inference must be that our canonical Gospel is a transla- 
tion of the original Apostolic work. 

He continues: 

This tradition (and inference) is, however, directly contradicted by the 
testimony of the first Gospel itself, for that work clearly shows itself to 
be a compilation by someone who has interwoven material from another 
source or other sources into the framework of the second Gospel. This 

15 See Streeter's characterization of this element of Mt, FG, pp. 502 f. 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 11 

renders it difficult to suppose that the book in its present form is the work 
of the Apostle Matthew. It is indeed not impossible, but it is very im- 
probable, that an Apostle should rely on the work of another for the entire 
framework of his narrative. If he did so he certainly composed his work in 
Greek, not in Hebrew, for the first Gospel has largely embodied the Greek 
phraseology of the second Gospel. It is inconceivable that the compiler 
should have rendered Mark's Greek into Hebrew, and that this should 
have been afterwards retranslated into Greek so closely resembling its 
Markan original. 

Allen sees as the only possible conclusion that the tradition of antiq- 
uity "has here gone astray." 

The Commentary of Plummer, already cited, repeats (on p. viii) the 
judgment of Allen in almost identical language. 

More recent, and in many respects superior to both, is that of A. H. 
McNeile (1915). In discussing the question of authorship on p. xxviii 
McNeile points out that the evangelist 

had no knowledge, or at least made no independent use, of the Hebrew 
Old Testament. 16 He seems to have lived at some place in Syria where the 
Christians were not in close touch with Jerusalem, and where the traditions 
that reached him were of very varying value, ranging from those which 
bear the unmistakable stamp of genuineness to stories of a purely legendary 
character, which must have grown up outside the range of the control 
which apostles or other eyewitnesses would have exercised. His archaeolog- 
ical bent of mind made him collect freely from all quarters with very little 
critical sifting. 

These are judicious words which we must give due weight in consider- 
ing later the question of provenance. 

As regards the ancient tradition and its incompatibility with the 
internal evidence McNeile's verdict is almost a repetition of that of 
Allen and Plummer. The author of the work, says McNeile, 

was certainly not Matthew the Apostle. Apart from the characteristics / 
just mentioned, one who could write with the paramount authority of an 
eyewitness would not have been content to base his work on that of a 
secondary authority. It clearly exhibits reflection, not recollection; it is 
a portrait of a Person rather than a chronicle of events. Moreover an 
early tradition had it that S. Matthew wrote in " Hebrew, " that is, Aramaic, 
a tradition which led to a confusion between the canonical Gospel and 
other evangelic records written in "Hebrew." But our Gospel is not a 
translation. Though Hebraic to the core, it is quite clearly a Greek com- 
position. If it were a translation its close dependence on the second Gos- 
pel would involve the extreme improbability that the latter was translated 
into Aramaic, that our author employed the Aramaic translation, which 
was afterwards retranslated into Greek in the present Second Gospel, and 

"See Appended Note V, "Scripture Quotations in S." 



12 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

that all the close verbal similarities between that and our First Gospel in 
Greek were accidental, while the original Greek of the Second Gospel, as 
well as its Aramaic translation, disappeared. 

Further evidence of the general rejection on the part of even the 
most conservative scholars of Zahn's modification of the primitive 
tradition is hardly required. It is rather in order that our list of recent 
commentaries may not seem to overlook an excellent work that we 
mention in addition the Commentary of P. A. Micklem in the West- 
minster Series (1917) which pronounces the same judgment. 17 

Let it be observed that this general rejection of Zahn's theory is 
not due to mere superficial objection to its complicated nature. In 
itself considered there is no insuperable obstacle to the supposition 
that a writing of the Apostle Matthew in Aramaic should have sur- 
vived until the times of Mk, been utilized by him as the basis of his 
Greek Gospel, then have been again utilized by the author of our 
Greek Mt, who in his translation assimilated his renderings to those 
of Mk. The really fatal objection is that disclosed by minute and de- 
tailed comparison of Mt with Mk along all three of the lines indicated 
in our extract from Streeter. Systematic comparison proves a relation 
of dependence both in form and content on the part of Mt upon Mk, 
and this dependence extends to the very structure of our first Gospel. 

But fas est ab hostibus doceri. Zahn's argument is worthy of study 
throughout. He is able to show among other facts dependence by 
Mk on documents, some of them Aramaic, and to point to real phe- 
nomena acknowledged by competent critics as demonstrating a cer- 
tain Hebraistic element requiring to be accounted for in Mt. We have 
given this element the provisional designation N because in our judg- 
ment it is best accounted for by the survival in oral or written form 
of certain haggadic traditions among Aramaic-speaking Christians 
of northeastern Syria. This survival has contaminated that blend of 
the Greek sources S and Mk which constitutes the substance of our 
canonical Mt, just as in later times canonical Mt itself has suffered 
a second, merely textual contamination in the "Zion" group of Mss. 

17 To be entirely accurate we should mention one other quite recent attempt to 
rescue the theory of Griesbach. Such an ally as J. M. Robertson, well known 
champion of the theory that Jesus had no historical existence, might be unwel- 
come to Zahn even were the argument less fallacious. Truth compels us, how- 
ever, to record, if only as the exception which "proves the rule," that in his 
volume Jesus and Judas (1928) Robertson seeks to account for the general aban- 
donment of the doctrine of the priority of Mt by the vested interest of the the- 
ologians (!). Reluctant to accept his theory of the mythical origin of gospel 
story they have preferred as more defensible Mk's story of "the beginning of the 
gospel" to Mt's account of a supernatural birth. By the aid of a few warmed- 
over extracts from Baur, Robertson finds it as easy to reinstate Griesbach as to 
vindicate the noble aims of Judas Iscariot. 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 13 

by infusions from Ev. Naz. A priori it cannot be proved that the 
source of the precanonical contamination was not an actual Aramaic 
composition of the Apostle Matthew. Only detailed study of the 
element N itself can determine its derivation. There will be few, how- 
ever, of those who have made this study, to dissent from Streeter's 
judgment of the character of N expressed in the passage to which we 
have already referred. 18 

If the general verdict of New Testament scholars brings small 
satisfaction to Zahn and his allies in their attempt to vindicate the 
ancient tradition based on the statement of Papias and given currency 
for nearly fifteen hundred years by Jerome and Augustine, the non- 
agenarian scholar is entitled to reciprocate a tu quoque on his oppo- 
nents in respect to a more modern tradition which has no better foun- 
dation. My own article above referred to voicing protest against the 
unlaid ghost of Schleiermacher's theory is little more than an echo 
of the disproof offered in section 54 of Zahn's monumental Introduc* 
tion, a disproof already offered long before by Zahn's great adversary 
Hilgenfeld. 

But something more than disproof seems to be required. Let it be 
shown by simple reference to the text that Papias had nothing to say 
about any compilation of the "oracles" save our own well known 
Mt (almost equally well known in his times), the reply comes back, 
" Well, if he did not, the Elder did. " Let it then be further shown that 
Papias does not refer this tradition to the "Elder, " the reply is made, 
"From whom else could he derive it?" This obsession represents 
the second "idol of the cave" in the problem of our first Gospel. 
A partial answer may be offered later to this demand. Meantime it 
will be well to call renewed attention to that portion of the tradition 
which receives most consideration from Zahn. In the section already 
referred to he makes his third and most important observation upon 
it as follows: 

The fact deserves more attention than has been paid to it heretofore, 
that Papias does not speak of the translation of Mt's writing, but of the 
words of Jesus which it contained. The idea that the words i/p/w^ewe 8' 
avra (sc. TO. Xoyta) cKaoros mean that a number of written translations or 
revisions of Mt's Gospel were made, can be arrived at only under the 
presupposition already shown to be untenable, that TO, Adyta was the 
title of a book. 

Zahn is unquestionably correct in maintaining that "Papias is 
talking about oral translation, and, indeed, oral translation such as 
was made in assemblies of Greek-speaking churches or congregations 
whose language was mixed. " He mentions the well known practice 

18 FG, pp. 502 f. On the Hebraistic element of Mt see below, Chap. XI, and 
Appended Note VII. On the Jewish-christian Gospels see Appended Note VI. 



14 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of "targuming, " continued for the benefit of Christians who did 
not know Greek in the Aramaic-speaking churches of southern Syria 
as late as the fourth century. He does not mention the Nazarene 
churches of northern Syria where the same practice continued at least 
down to the time of the composition of the Aramaic gospels still known 
to us through the extracts of Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius. 
Neither does he bring into logical connection with it the facts he him- 
self adduces with great force in his KG II, 2, App. IX, 3 (pp. 665 ff.) 
concerning the region of circulation (Verbreitungsgebief) of the Ara- 
maic Gospel of the Nazarenes. It is true that Jerome's happy thought 
of identifying this late and dependent composition with the "authen- 
tic Hebrew" of the Apostle Matthew was long since proved a mare's 
nest. Both it and the Aramaic "Gospel according to Jn" and "Book 
of Acts," which Epiphanius found in use besides this "Hebrew Gospel 
according to Mt" among the Christians at Tiberias in Galilee, were 
(as Epiphanius distinctly says) "translations," that is, targums of 
the same type as the Synagogue targums of the Old Testament, 
paraphrases embellished with edifying supplements and interpreta- 
tions superimposed upon the original, which in the case of the Chris- 
tian writings were simply our own canonical books. Jerome's ex- 
tracts from the "Hebraica veritas" are therefore of small value to 
establish the true text of Mt. But they are of great value for the 
light they shed upon the practice of "targuming" in the zone of 
Aramaic-speaking Christianity extending eastward from Antioch 
beyond the Euphrates. This district included the tribes known to 
Pliny as "Nazarenes," located "across the river (Marsyas)" from 
Apamea, and Beroea-Aleppo where Jerome c. 375 professed to have 
seen "the authentic Hebrew." 

For earlier than the written targum, (already known to Hegesippus 
c. 160, and "discovered" by Pantaenus of Alexandria on his famous 
journey to "the nations of the East" c. ISO) 19 must be placed the 
practice of oral "targuming" among the Aramaic-speaking churches 
of this wide area. Its eastward limit may perhaps be fixed from the 
travels of Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis in Phrygia, who journeyed 
about 190 "with Paul as guide" across "the Syrian plain," welcomed 
by the churches of "all its cities" until "after crossing the Euphrates" 
he came to Nisibis. Josephus has much to tell of the Jewish popula- 
tion in these regions. In the preface to his Jewish War he reveals their 
language conditions. The book was originally written in his "mother- 
tongue" (Aramaic) for the benefit of the multitudes of his fellow- 
countrymen dwelling at the time (80-90) in Mesopotamia and Adia- 
bene as well as in Parthia and "furthest Arabia" ('Apa/iW re rows 
TToppcoTaTu). Adiabene had become Jewish in faith under Izates 

19 See below, and cf. Appended Note VI. 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 15 

(40-64). 20 The border states to the west and southwest along the 
great trade-route which from Trajan's time connected the Parthian 
Empire with the Roman province of Syria shared the vicissitudes of 
Adiabene as respects race, culture, religion, and language. Portions 
of this region between Damascus and Nisibis, the "Arabia" of Jose- 
phus and probably of Paul also (Gal. 1:17), were Christianized from 
very early times. The new religion took root especially in the great 
cities, whose language was Greek, Damascus being the starting 
point (Acts 9:1-19; Gal. 1:17). 

As an example of the spread of the gospel eastward from Antioch 
in the earliest times into this bilingual region, where in the cities 
Greek was still the dominant language, so that even synagogues of 
the large Jewish population employed it in public worship, we may 
take Edessa, metropolis of Osrhoene. This is the modern Urfa, on the 
east side of the Euphrates, enclosed in its great western bend, and so 
for the first century under Parthian suzerainty rather than Roman, 
though just over the border. It was a trading center of very high im- 
portance, and a seat of Greek culture. A few miles to the north on the 
west bank of the river lay Samosata, whence came in the second half 
of the second century the Dialogues of Lucian, composed in some of 
the most cultured Greek since Demosthenes. Samosata was the capi- 
tal of Commagene and in later times a great Christian center. Further 
east, across the Tigris lay Nisibis, still more famous. Between Nisibis 
and Edessa stretched the broad and fertile plains of Adiabene ruled 
since 40 A.D. by a royal house converted to Judaism. 

If, then, Antioch's Christian conquests extended westward under 
Paul and Barnabas to regions whose native tongues had in the cities 
been submerged by Greek, we may be sure that they extended later 
(or perhaps even earlier, during the unknown years which Paul speaks 
of as spent "in Arabia" (Gal. 1:17), or as occupied by mission work 
"in Syria and Cilicia" (Gal. 1:21)) to the cities along Antioch's great 
trade-route to the east. For in these cities Greek was still the domi- 
nating tongue, but the submerged speech, destined within a century 
to reassert itself as "Syriac," was the Aramaic of the whole Semitic 
world. 

More is known of the Christianization of Edessa and Osrhoene 
than of the adjoining regions, therefore we can form the best judg- 
ment of conditions in "Arabia, " or "Assyria" as the region came later 
to be called, from this typical center of Grecized Semitic culture. 
Let us treat Edessa as typical. The earliest beginnings of its Chris- 
tian history are lost. They have left no trace besides the legend of 
the letter of Edessa's king Abgar the Black (A.D. 13-50) to Jesus, 
followed by the king's conversion by Addai, one of the Seventy 

Jos., Ant., XX, ii-iv. 



16 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

disciples. Eusebius relates the story as translated by himself from 
the Syriac in the first book of his Church History (I, xiii). All it can 
convey to us is the bare fact that the church which reassembled in 
Edessa after the sack and burning of the city by Lusius Quietus in 
the Parthian campaign of Trajan (116 A.D.), a church probably 
Syriac in speech, which furnished a center for the mission-work of 
Tatian (c. 170), and whose "temple" was destroyed by the great 
flood of 201, believed itself to have had a predecessor, and held the 
name of "Trajan" in abhorrence as the arch-persecutor. 

This church of northeastern Syria has thus a prehistoric period, 
a semihistoric (covering just a century to the seizure of Edessa by 
Caracalla), and a third in which it emerges into the full light of day 
with a great Syriac literature of its own. According to Prof. F. C. 
Burkitt, our great authority on the beginnings of Syriac Christianity, 
Edessa "must have been a centre of literary culture long before the 
coming of Christianity to it, and the earliest surviving writings have 
an ease and fluidity which seems to reflect traces of Greek influence." 21 
But even in later, Christian, times the influences which gave rise to 
this culture and literature came from the west. A break occurs in the 
local episcopal succession after the names of Addai and Aggai, the 
traditional first founders of the church. The third bishop, Palut, 
receives his ordination not from his predecessor Aggai, but from Sera- 
pion, Bishop of Antioch (!) about 190-211 A.D. As Professor Burkitt 
puts it: 

We are thus confronted in the Doctrine of Addai with two theories of 
the rise of Christianity in Edessa. On the one theory, which is that main- 
tained in the body of the work, Christianity was planted there in the first 
century of our era; on the other, which is that of the epilogue, the third 
president of the Christian society at Edessa was not ordained bishop till 
about 200 A.D., and Christianity itself cannot have reached the district 
much before the middle of the second century. 

Professor Burkitt's own conclusion naturally supports the latter 
alternative, for he is concerned with that Syriac-christian literature 
whose beginnings are marked by the Old Syriac Gospels (c. 160) 
and later the introduction from Rome (of course again by way of An- 
tioch) by Tatian, disciple of Justin Martyr, of the Diatessaron, or 
four-fold Gospel Harmony. It is still within this second period that 
the great figure of Bardesanes emerges, poet, philosopher, and church 
leader, whom the church in northern Syria (to its own hurt) refuses 
to tolerate, decreeing him Gnostic and heretic. 

But we are interested in the other theory, that of an original first- 
century planting. Not because it has any historical documents, nor 

21 Early Eastern Christianity, 1904, p. 7. 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 17 

because the Doctrine of Addai can offer anything more to our purpose 
than the bare attestation (in itself wholly probable) of a prehistoric 
period in the cities of Euphratean Syria, a period when under Greek 
culture, language, and institutions, among a Jewish population ac- 
customed to use Greek even for its synagogue services, Christianity 
found a foothold. This planting came, however, from the liberal, 
Petrine community of Antioch; not, as in Transjordan, from the 
Palestinian churches which looked to James as chief authority. The 
Ebionite churches in Transjordan, it is true, used the Greek language, 
in which their gospel, the Ev. Hebr., was written. But in their atti- 
tude toward Paul and the Pauline writings the Ebionites stood at 
the opposite pole from the "Nazarenes" of northeastern Syria. 

We must defer to an Appended Note (No. VI) discussion of the re- 
lation of Mt to the Aramaic gospels, but none will dispute the fact 
that it is with the Ev. Naz. alone that it has close affinity; nor will 
any modern scholar deny that the Aramaic is here translated from 
the Greek and not vice versa. In the earlier time, shortly after Jose- 
phus composed his Jewish War in Aramaic for the benefit of his fellow 
countrymen in Adiabene, Parthia, and Arabia, if Christianity had 
already made its way from Antioch eastward among the Greek- 
speaking Jewish synagogues, these doubtless followed the Jewish 
practice of oral "targuming" from such Greek gospels as reached 
them. These early gospels, however, would not be Mt or Lk, but 
S and Mk, from which Mt was soon compounded, a Greek gospel 
tinged by Aramaic infiltration. 

As Zahn observes, this process of "targuming" may have been 
known to Papias by report. It can scarcely have been known to him 
by personal observation in the Greek-speaking churches of Phrygia 
and Asia. If, then, his statement possesses any value at all, it should 
tend to throw much needed light on the source of his tradition. 
Zahn, it is true, would have it understood that the practice was that 
of the bilingual churches of Palestine. But, as McNeile makes plain, 
the peculiarities of N are such as to make it almost impossible to 
imagine this material originating within the sphere of Jerusalem, or 
any other save a north-Syrian region beyond the control of apostolic 
supervision. 

Remoteness of writer and readers alike both in place and time 
from the scenes described is indeed revealed in Mt not alone by the 
apocryphal character of the supplements but also by the point of 
view unaffectedly assumed by the evangelist. It is true that Mt 
shows better geographical knowledge than Mk, and especially is 
better informed concerning Jewish conditions and institutions. If 
Rome be the cradle of Mk nothing else could be expected. But when 
in 7:29 Mt substitutes "their scribes" for Mk's simple "the scribes," 



18 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

and follows this up in 9:35; 13:54 with "their synagogue(s) " (Mk 
6:2 "the" synagogue) and in 11:1 "their cities" when in 9:26 and 
31 he speaks of "that land" 22 and in 14:35 of "that place" the im- 
pression the reader receives is not what one would expect from a resi- 
dent of the country writing for residents. A resident would hardly 
be apt to speak of the Syrophoenician as a "Canaanite" (15:22) or 
remark that the field bought with the thirty pieces of silver "was 
called the Field of Blood unto this day" (27:8), still less that the 
charge of theft of Jesus' corpse "was spread abroad among the Jews 
until this day" (28:15). "Gadarenes" in 8:28 and "Magadan" in 
15:39 are well meant, though dubious, corrections of the impossible 
"Gerasenes" of Mk 5:1 and the unintelligible "Dalmanutha" of 
Mk 8 :10, but the vagueness of "the mountain " in 5 :1 (Mk 3 :13) , 15 :29, 
and especially "the mountain where Jesus had appointed" in 28:16, 
and the vagueness of "that place" for an unnamed village of Gen- 
nesaret (14:35) are incredible in an eyewitness and difficult to imagine 
in a later resident of the country. Ev. Hebr. is a dependent and vastly 
inferior writing, but its author at least shows local knowledge by 
substituting "Mount Tabor" for the "high mountain" of the Tempta- 
tion whence one may see "all the kingdoms of the world and the glory 
of them." R mt gets his geography largely from the Old Testament. 
The question of provenance is thus inextricably bound up with that 
of authenticity. Streeter argues (FG, pp. 500 ff.) for Antioch as the 
birthplace of the first Gospel, as follows: 

The Patristic evidence that Mt was written in Palestine in Hebrew is 
impressive until we reflect that all the Fathers had read the statement 
of Irenaeus (either in the original or as reproduced by Eusebius), and that 
Irenaeus himself had read Papias' dictum on ra \6yta. Thus the tradition 
can be traced back to a single root; and, quite apart from the correctness 
of our interpretation of Papias, it cannot be authentic, for our Gospel of 
Mt being based on the Greek Mk cannot be a translation from the Aramaic. 
At the same time the evidence of Irenaeus and Papias has a negative value. 
It proves that Mt was not produced either in Rome or Asia Minor, but 
was believed to have originally come from the East. 

Let the "negative value" of this testimony pass for what it will. 
Those who believed the Gospel to have been written by the Apostle 
in "Hebrew" would certainly believe it to have "come from the 
East" whether knowledge of its provenance had anything to do with 
their acceptance of the title or not. Fortunately it is not necessary 
to labor the point, as ancient and modern opinion are practically 
at one on its Syrian derivation. 23 Neither need we delay with the 

22 On the expression, see McNeile ad 9:26. 

23 Von Soden's reference to Mt as a "Roman" gospel (below, p. 71) forms a 
great exception. 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 19 

sporadic suggestion of Egypt as a possible birthplace, which Streeter 
justly dismisses as "impossible." 24 What concerns us more is his 
novel argument from the original "anonymity, " of Mt, an observation 
of real value, though given (as we believe) a false application in 
Streeter's argument for Antioch as its place of origin. 
His argument is as follows: 

We can be sure that Mt originated in an important church for the simple 
reason that, apart from the title, which, of course, forms no part of the 
original text, it is anonymous. The significance of this anonymity is apt 
to be overlooked. The Apocryphal Gospels all try to claim authority by 
definite and often reiterated assertions of Apostolic authorship in the text 
itself. The spurious Gospel of Peter (2d century A.D.), for instance, goes 
out of its way to introduce "I, Simon Peter," just before the account of 
the Eesurrection. Mt is anonymous; it makes no claim to authority, gives 
no hint of authorship. 

The point is well taken. In the original home of the first Gospel it 
required no special name or title. It circulated, like similar composi- 
tions among Gnostic one-gospel men (followers of Basilides, or Mar- 
cion, or Cerinthus), simply as "the" Gospel. It is actually thus 
quoted by several early writers, though there is difficulty in deciding 
in many cases whether Mt in particular or just the written record in 
general is meant. The specific title "according to Matthew," with 
the tradition which later developed on the basis of this title, was 
created for the purpose of distinguishing it from other gospels cir- 
culating simultaneously in the same church. For this very reason 
Streeter's proposal of Antioch as its place of origin is extremely im- 
probable. 

We must sharply distinguish between place of origin and focus (or 
foci) of dissemination, the locality (or localities) which Streeter desig- 
nates a "centre of distribution." 

For the wide acceptance of Mt a very large factor, if not the great- 
est, was the title, which was early understood to imply apostolic 
authorship. It is precisely this which is not likely to have been con- 
ferred upon the Gospel at its actual birthplace, or where its origin was 
best known (at least not in the sense of direct composition by the 
Apostle). The title was prefixed in some other, perhaps neighboring, 
locality, where the Gospel came into competition with older gospels 
already in circulation such as Mk, S, or Lk. 

Streeter's argument for Antioch as the place of origin of Mt ignores 
this distinction. His plea is that "the Gospel would not have been 
generally accepted as Apostolic unless it had been backed by one of 

24 The first gospels known in Egypt appear to have been two, both, naturally, 
composed in Greek. They were distinguished by title as (1) The Gospel according 
to the Hebrews and (2) The Gospel according to the Egyptians. 



20 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the great churches. " True enough. But "backing" is not needed for 
composition, and leaves no mark on the pages of the work. Simeon 
and Anna proclaimed the Christ-child in Jerusalem, but the birth- 
place was Bethlehem. 

"Backing" affects dissemination. And the foci of dissemination 
are often not limited to a single church. We may suppose, for in- 
stance, that Mt, having come into circulation at Antioch from some 
more eastern locality of mixed Aramaic and Greek speech, received 
in Antioch the title "According to Matthew" to distinguish it from 
gospels already in circulation at that great metropolis of Gentile 
Christianity. If in Antioch it acquired special prestige through the 
favor of Ignatius the bishop, and was by him subsequently brought 
to the favorable knowledge first of the churches of Phrygia and Asia 
through which Ignatius journeyed to his famous martyrdom, and 
ultimately to that of Rome itself, the "backing" of Antioch, Ephesus, 
and Rome would surely suffice to account even for the immense 
prestige soon enjoyed by Mt, wholly apart from what it was called 
or understood to be in its birthplace, whether important or obscure. 

This question of the actual birthplace of Mt is vital because en- 
vironment leaves its mark on literary products. It cannot, therefore, 
be adequately discussed save in connection with the internal evi- 
dence. We may, however, even at this point, advert once more to the 
able and acute reasoning of Zahn, who cites evidence by no means 
to be disregarded, even if adduced in support of a theory of origins 
which is generally and justly dismissed as incredible. The birthplace 
of Mt was undoubtedly in Syria, in some locality where Jewish tra- 
ditions and even some remote influence from the Hebrew Old Testa- 
ment still lingered. But, as McNeile correctly infers from the late 
and apocryphal character of N, these circles, though "Hebraic to the 
core," were "not in close touch with Jerusalem" but "outside the 
range of the control which apostles or other eyewitnesses would have 
exercised." 

To what other region of Greek speech but Hebraic traditions shall 
we look? It is Zahn himself who calls attention to another stream of 
tradition as to the provenance of Mt, manifestly related to that which 
comes to us through Papias, yet (if Zahn may be trusted) not derived 
from it. This independent tradition comes from Alexandria, where we 
have no reason to suppose Papias was known. Eusebius relates it 25 
as derived from the visit of Clement's predecessor Pantaenus from a 
missionary journey made by the great churchman about 180 A.D. 
to "the nations of the East." The journey, whether begun by land 
or sea, would take him through the flourishing regions already de- 
scribed of Syria Euphratensis, east and southeast of Antioch, and so 

26 HE, V. x. 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 21 

down the Euphrates valley, for "he penetrated as far as India," 
though by "India" perhaps only the territory adjoining the Persian 
Gulf is meant. The "nations of the East" inhabited a region sup- 
porting, as we have seen, a huge Jewish population of great influence 
among their fellow-Jews. At least in the more northern parts it was 
bilingual, Greek and Aramaic being used in different proportions in 
various localities. In the cities the Greek tended at first to eliminate 
the Semitic languages, in the rural districts, and ultimately the cities 
also, the reverse was true. Aramaic, as we know, was the language of 
the Nazarene church in Beroea-Aleppo in Jerome's time. It is still 
spoken among the Nusairi mountaineers of northeastern Lebanon, 
just, as among the Mandean (Gnostic) "Nazarenes" of Babylonia 
the speech is still Aramaic in type. Naturally among these Christians 
"of mixed speech" the practice of oral "targummg" would prevail 
until written Aramaic gospels based on the Greek came into circula- 
tion, to be replaced in .turn by the Syriac. 

The point of present interest is that Pantaenus brought back to 
Alexandria from his visit to "the nations of the East" the report 
that he had found among the Christians there a gospel "written in 
Hebrew characters and the Hebrew language" which they ascribed 
to the Apostle Matthew, claiming that it had been left with them by 
the Apostle Bartholomew, by whom their churches were said to have 
been founded. Eusebius, to whom we owe the tale, hesitates to 
recognize in this document a survival of the "authentic Hebrew," 
as well he might; but there is nothing against its having been a copy 
of the Ev. Naz. here explicitly called by the name of "Matthew." 
Pantaenus' experience merely anticipates that of Apollinaris of 
Laodicea and Jerome in Chalcis between Antioch and Aleppo, just as 
Jerome's anticipates that of impressionable visitors to the library of 
St. Mark's in Venice or to the Synagogue of the Samaritans in Na- 
blous. Stripped of its legendary features Pantaenus' report merely 
witnesses to an eastward spread of the same tradition which in its 
western (Antiochian?) branch appears in Papias. The Aramaic Mt 
shown to Pantaenus in Mesopotamia had not been brought thither 
from Jerusalem by Bartholomew, but it may well attest the wider 
circulation among Aramaic-speaking Christians of Jewish stock 
eastward from Antioch of targums in written form based on the ca- 
nonical Greek. Once more let it be said: These written targums 
which we partly know, will have had, like their predecessors for the 
Old Testament, an oral origin. But for the supporting main stock of 
these Christian targums, oral as well as written, we should look to the 
Petrine evangelic records of Antioch, where Mk and S, if not Lk 
also, were already current. 

We cannot here anticipate discussion belonging to our study of the 



22 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

internal evidence, in particular the factor N. But in order that justice 
may be done to the witness of Pantaenus and its possible bearing 
on the question of the birthplace of Mt it may be worth while to call 
attention to the experience of a region where the influx of Jews of 
alien tongue and traditions within a generation has produced effects 
surely not unlike those which gave birth to our first Gospel. In the 
vicinity of New York Jewish immigrants of the first generation main- 
tain their synagogue organization and practice. Newspapers are pub- 
lished in Yiddish; Yiddish and traces of Hebrew continue to have 
a limited currency among the orthodox. In the second generation 
little of this remains. The "liberal" synagogue rapidly eclipses the 
orthodox, English takes the place of Yiddish even among those, who 
remain "Hebraic to the core" in matters of religion. The Bible used 
is an English translation of the Old Testament; even the Prayer Book 
has the Hebrew only on one side of the page. 

In the progressive Hellenization of the cities of northeastern Syria 
the Jewish synagogues must have experienced something similar. 
Some became Christian. Semitic names would continue, and to some 
extent Jewish forms, traditions, and speech. But the latter would 
soon give way. The younger generation, at least in the cities, would 
require the use of the Greek language. In all periods the dependence 
of these Eastern churches has been mainly on Antioch. In 90-100 
A.D. the supreme apostolic authority would be Peter, head of the 
Antiochian succession. Their gospel writings would be those funda- 
mental at Antioch, the Markan "Reminiscences of Peter," and S. 
The same blend is fundamental in Lk also, but the blend Mk, Mt, 
Lk, appears only in the Ev. Petri, still used in 200 A.D. at Rhossus 
near Antioch. 

Between Damascus and the Euphrates some reflection of local 
conditions would also be apt to make itself felt. The days of " tar- 
guming," when "oracles" of the Lord were translated orally according 
to the preacher's ability, would be apt to leave their mark. In the 
exceptional case of actual survival of the Aramaic speech, as at 
Aleppo, these Aramaic targums of the Greek Gospels would ulti- 
mately take written forms, some of which we know. In other cases 
the oral renderings of the Lord's words, particularly fulfilments of 
Scripture in the events of his life, would linger on to leave their 
impress even on the Greek writings of (Christianized) synagogue 
use. 

So with our Gospels of Mt and Lk. The more characteristically 
Palestinian traditions of Jewish type are reflected in Lk. Particularly 
in Acts a Jacobean tradition is in evidence. Mt, though correct in 
speech, is "Hebraic to the core"; but its distinctive material (P mt ) 
suggests an environment "not in close touch with Jerusalem" and 



THE TRADITION OF MATTHEAN ORIGIN 23 

outside the range of control which apostles or other eye-witnesses 
would have exercised." For its birthplace we should look to the Greek- 
speaking Jewish-christian communities of northern and northeastern 
Syria, which took their type of Christian teaching from Antioch and 
looked to Peter as sole arbiter of faith and practice, but retained 
echoes from earlier days of oral "targuming. " 



CHAPTER II 
THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION 

A VEEDICT of competent judges so decisive as that recorded in the pre- 
ceding chapter against the tradition of Matthean authorship would 
seem at first to leave no room for further enquiry. If the first Gospel 
is not the work of the Apostle Matthew, not a translation from the 
"Hebrew," and did not originate in Palestine, how can any further 
use be made of the fallacious belief? 

The answer is that even illusions have their raison d'etre, which 
it is the duty of every critic to sound to the bottom. Critics are com- 
monly classed as "liberal" or "conservative." Every genuine critic 
must be both. The difference is only that "conservative" critics are 
more sanguine than others of discovering some latent crumb of truth 
in traditions that to their fellows appear hopeless. Every one of the 
critics whose verdict against the Matthean tradition was cited in 
Chapter I is commonly classed as a "conservative," however coinci- 
dent in their judgment of the Matthean tradition with scholars 
classed as "liberal." The "critic" owes his name to his function as 
"judge" (K/ot'-nys). But he would be lacking in the very first of "ju- 
dicial" qualities if he failed to give sympathetic attention to the plea 
against which the verdict has been ultimately cast. Moreover "No 
thoroughfare" is marked over the road which he must take until 
the last fragment of valid obstruction has been removed. What ac- 
count, then, can be given of the mistaken tradition? 

Behind the earliest known forms of the tradition of authorship lies 
the story of its formation, which in the case of Mt can only be reached 
through the indirect witness of extracts, employments, and echoes in 
primitive writers apparently acquainted with this Gospel, but whose 
estimate of it must be inferred from the amount and character of 
their employment of the work in comparison with their employment 
of other sources. 

In dealing with Streeter's attempt to make Antioch the birthplace 
of Mt instead of its first great focus of dissemination we have had 
occasion to take up in a preliminary way certain evidences of the 
spread both of the Gospel itself and the report concerning its origin 
almost a generation before the date of Papias' Expositions. If now we 
turn to the indirect evidence of unacknowledged employments in 
earlier writers, there will be general assent to the statement that clear 

24 



THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION 25 

evidence of the use of Mt appears first in the letters of Ignatius, 
Bishop of Antioch, whose journey to martyrdom in Rome about 115 
A.D. carried him past the Pauline "churches of Asia," with which he 
had notable contact both orally, through delegates who attended 
him while a prisoner, and also by letters written to the churches at 
their request. One of the letters is addressed to Polycarp of Smyrna, 
others to several of the churches of Phrygia and Proconsular Asia, 
one addresses the church at Rome. 

All critics draw inferences from the undoubted employment of Mt 
by Ignatius. Other employments of the period are either dubious 
as respects their derivation from Mt rather than some other evangelic 
record, as in the case of two citations of "words of the Lord" in 
Clement of Rome (95 A.D.), 1 or occur in writings whose own date is 
dubious, as in the reference of Ps-Barnabas (132 A.D. ?) to the "scrip- 
ture" (!) "Many called, few chosen." With the latter group must 
be classed quite a number of unacknowledged employments in The 
Teaching of the Twelve,* several of which are certainly referable to 
Mt, as where the writer exhorts his readers to regulate their prayers, 
almsgivings, and all their deeds "as ye find it in the gospel of our 
Lord." Here a written record is referred to which can only be Mt, 
no other gospel containing such directions as Mt 6:1-18. Unfortu- 
nately we cannot be sure that the writer in speaking of "the" gospel 
would not also include the directions of Jesus "according to" any 
other evangelist who might preserve them. Moreover judgments of 
the date of DidacM vary from 90 to 140 A.D. It was probably a 
church manual in use at Antioch in this general period, but whether 
earlier or later than Ignatius is difficult to determine. Needless to 
add that the name "Matthew" nowhere appears before Papias. 
If, then, we would form any worth-while idea of the "root" of the 
tradition of Matthean origin for Mt, careful scrutiny must be made 
of these unacknowledged employments. 

Zahn maintains, as we have seen, that there really was once a Pales- 
tinian gospel written by the Apostle Matthew in Aramaic. This, he 
believes, was unfortunately allowed to disappear after Mk had copied 
from it the best elements of his Gospel, whereupon another unknown 
writer constructed our present Mt out of the Greek Mk blended with 
the original Aramaic gospel from which Mk had drawn. We shall 
assume that enough has already been said in disproof of this apolo- 
getic. It attempts to defend a statement of Papias made on entirely 
unknown authority at the cost of the only truly ancient and trust- 
worthy tradition we possess concerning gospel origins, that is, Papias' 

1 Polycarp (115) cites the same logia, either employing Clement or else Clem- 
ent's compend. 

2 Referred to hereinafter as Didache. 



26 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

other statement concerning Mk, which he adduces on the authority 
of "the Elder." True conservatism would suggest the more docile 
attitude toward the witness of the Elder, the more sceptical toward 
that of Papias. 

But we have also a considerable body of scholars, particularly those 
of English speech, who refuse to admit the validity of Zahn's inter- 
pretation of Papias, and who, if forced to acknowledge that Papias 
himself can only have referred to our own Mt as a compilation (o-wra- 
ts) of the logia he (Papias) had in mind to interpret, continue to 
maintain that at least his informant "the Elder" referred to another 
writing. Streeter, for example, considers that the "single root" of 
the whole misreport of antiquity concerning our first Gospel was this 
misunderstanding of Papias. "The Elder" told of "Matthew" and 
his compilation of "oracles of the Lord"; but he was speaking of 
another writing, a Teaching Source now represented by the element 
SQ. If the Matthean tradition really has any such "single root" we 
have the deepest interest to discover it. If not, it is almost equally 
important to dispel the illusion, for it occupies the foreground in a 
very large proportion of minds given to the tracing up of sources un- 
derlying our canonical Gospels. 

As already noted the illusion of "the Elder" as authority for the 
Matthean tradition is entirely without foundation in the text. Papias 
leaves his bare statement unsupported, giving not the slightest inti- 
mation whence he derived it. "The Elder John" is merely a modern 
guess. 

But it is not even a good guess, because Eusebius, who promises 
his readers such information as he can find on these points, would 
have been only too pleased to lend the support of the Elder's author- 
ity to the Matthean tradition had Papias supplied it. Since neither 
Eusebius nor any of the ancient Fathers who ransacked the pages of 
Papias for information of this kind, tells anything of the derivation 
of the statement it is more probable that Papias adduced no author- 
ity for it. Such is the conclusion of Meyer (Commentary on Mt, 
transl. of Christie, 1884, p. 3, note 1) in answer to Sieffert, Ebrard, 
Thiersch, Delitzsch, and others; a conclusion based not merely on 
the silence of Eusebius but on the contrast in mode of introduction 
of the two extracts. Eusebius refers to the former as "a tradition 
put forward concerning Mark." As to the latter he merely says: 
"But as concerning Matthew this is said" (sc. by Papias). 

For we are rightly admonished by Zahn to observe the interest in 
which Papias puts forward the statement. He is not concerned to 
give information concerning the literary labors of the Apostle Mat- 
thew, but only to forestall objections to his own use of a record of the 
logia which though ascribed to the Aramaic-speaking apostle is ac- 



THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION 27 

tually written in Greek. That is, the utterance is made solely on the 
issue of language. Papias is not attempting to gratify the curiosity 
of those who might ask how, and on what authority these "command- 
ments delivered by the Lord to the faith" were transmitted, but 
those who asked why the Gospel is written in Greek if its author 
spoke Hebrew. Papias explains that the well known compend of 
the logia made by the Apostle Matthew now extant in Greek was 
originally compiled in "Hebrew," a fact which he considers to be 
attested by the former practice of targuming in bilingual churches. 

Accordingly we must limit ourselves, if we would reach a reliable 
conception of the tradition as it came to Papias and is assumed by 
him to be familiar to his readers, to a minimum which cannot be due 
to mere inference on his part. Papias knew that the language of Jesus 
and the Apostles was Aramaic, or, as he and most of his Greek-speak- 
ing contemporaries call it, "Hebrew"; whereas Mt, the compend of 
the logia in his hands, is written in Greek. If he had information, 
authentic or otherwise, that the book had the Apostle Matthew as 
author, he would almost inevitably infer that the Greek was a trans- 
lation. The converse is inadmissible. It is incredible that Papias 
should make the former statement as a mere guess, naming "Mat- 
thew" by conjecture alone as the particular apostle concerned. That 
portion of the statement at least comes to him from current report. 
It is repeated without special emphasis as commonly admitted tra- 
dition. Contrariwise it would be almost inevitable that Papias or 
others should draw from the title "According to Matthew" as an 
obvious corollary that the original language of the book had been 
"Hebrew." Since, then, this secondary statement is demonstrably 
contrary to fact it is likely that Papias adds it to the tradition by 
simple conjecture. 

We therefore have no assurance of anything more in the tradition 
as it came to Papias than simply the title, superscribed as now, "Ac- 
cording to Matthew." In Papias' age, though not necessarily in the 
earlier generation, this would be understood in the sense of personal 
authorship. If this title had ever encountered opposition Papias 
seems unaware of the fact. Mt was to everybody then, as to the 
multitude now, just "The Gospel according to Matthew." If Mat- 
thew spoke "Hebrew" then of course this was a "translation." 

One other item of the tradition may be added to the title of the 
book as having possibly come to Papias by report. The mere state- 
ment that the Apostle Matthew in making his compend had used 
the "Hebrew" language cannot be relied upon as traditional. It 
could equally well be, and probably is, mere inference. But the 
reference to "targuming" as a practice once prevalent in the churches, 
a reference made in support of the translation theory, can hardly be 



28 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

drawn from Papias' personal experience. It is true to fact among the 
bilingual churches whether of southern or northern Syria, but there 
is nothing to show that it prevailed among those of Phrygia or Pro- 
consular Asia. Zahn may be straining the distinction between aorist 
and imperfect when he insists that the aorist ^p^veva-e. ("trans- 
lated") in Papias' statement implies a practice to which he could not 
personally testify; but the actual environment, and Papias' seeming 
ignorance of the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic, make it 
more probable on other grounds that he is speaking by hearsay only. 

Whence, then, does this somewhat vague information come? As 
before, "the Elder" is an improbable source. Reference to him would 
probably have been explicit. If the explanation which serves to fore- 
stall objections to the Matthean tradition on the score of language 
comes from the same sources as the tradition itself we may look for 
this source to the foci of dissemination and the "backing" which 
gave to Mt its extraordinary prestige. If an individual name be 
demanded, Ignatius, who twenty-five years before had passed through 
Phrygia and Asia, using this Gospel in his letters and almost cer- 
tainly commending it orally as an antidote to the heresies he so 
vigorously denounces, is much more likely than John the Elder to 
have first given currency to the statements on which Papias relies 
for his confident but mistaken assertions regarding Mt. 

We have still to enquire whether the predecessors of Papias, in 
whose hands Mt must have circulated under the same title it still 
bears, understood the preposition "according to" in the same strict 
sense as he. Obviously when such titles as Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, or Gospel according to the Egyptians, were given, it was not 
so taken. In fact Faustus, the Manichean opponent of Augustine in 
the fifth century, pointed out that the preposition Kara as here em- 
ployed is ambiguous and does not necessarily imply personal author- 
ship. The real facts in the case are admirably stated in the opening 
sentence of Plummer's Commentary already referred to: 

In no case is the title to a book of the New Testament part of the original 
document. It was in all cases added by a copyist, and perhaps not by the 
first copyist. Moreover, in all cases it varies considerably in form, the 
simplest forms being the earliest. The "according to" neither affirms 
nor denies authorship; it implies conformity to a type, and need not mean 
more than "drawn up according to the teaching of." But it is certain 
that the Christians of the first four centuries who gave these titles to the 
Gospels meant more than this: they believed, and meant to express, that 
each Gospel was written by the person whose name it bears. They used 
this mode of expression, rather than the genitive case used of the Epistles, 
to intimate that the same subject had been treated of by others; and they often 



THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION 29 

emphasized the oneness of the subject by speaking of "the Gospel" rather 
than "the Gospels." This mode of expression is accurate; there is only 
one Gospel, "the Gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1) concerning His Son. But 
it has been given us in four shapes (evayyeXiov TCTpa/xop^ov, Iren. III. 
xi. 8), and "according to" indicates the shape given to it by the writer 
named. 

Let us apply to the case of Papias the distinction thus clearly and 
correctly drawn. Stripped of unwarranted inference and later strained 
interpretation the tradition which Papias reports contains nothing 
beyond the ordinary designation of the book. It was in his time, as 
now, "The Gospel according to Matthew." Papias takes the prepo- 
sition "according to" in the strict sense common among his con- 
temporaries. 3 Consequently he assumes the Greek gospel which he 
holds in his hands to be a translation, and supports his inference by a 
reference to the practice of "targuming." When he avers that "Mat- 
thew compiled (the force of the o-w in both variant readings o-weVa&v 
and o-wey/oai/Kv should not be overlooked) the logia" he means the 
"commandments (ei/roAai) delivered by the Lord" and recorded in 
Mt (cf. Mt 28:20). The brevity of the expression "the logia" is due 
to the fact that these same logia had been previously spoken of were 
in fact part of the title of Papias' own book. He believes (mistakenly) 
that the compilation was the personal work of the Apostle Matthew, 
doubtless identifying this apostle (again mistakenly), as does the 
Gospel itself, with Levi the publican, son of Alphaeus. 

But these strained interpretations and wrong inferences should 
not properly be charged to the account of the tradition itself as it was 
current in earlier days. Much has been, and continues to be imported 
into the ancient text whose only foundation is "the desire to connect 
Papias with the traditional Hebrew original of the Gospel of Mt." 
Antiquity also imported its own meanings into titles. What really 
remains to be accounted for is simply the title "Gospel according to 
Matthew," current in Papias' time as in ours. This is that "single 
root" we are in search of, for whatever it may convey. Neither the 
preposition "according to" nor the name "Matthew" stands supe- 
rior to question. "According to," as we have seen, need not at first 
have been applied in the strict sense of personal authorship. "Mat- 
thew" is one of the commonest of Jewish names. As Origen already 
saw and as has been clearly shown in my Expositor article entitled 
"Why 'according to Matthew' ? " the identification with Levi the 
publican, son of Alphaeus, is fallacious. There is nothing incredible 
in the understanding that some Greek-speaking Jewish convert of 
this name actually did compile and give his name to our first Gospel. 

3 The composer of the Gospel according to (icard) Peter (130-140?) introduces 
Peter as speaking in the first person "I, Peter, and Andrew my brother." 



30 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The only incredible thing is that it should have been Matthew the 
Apostle. The tradition, then, is still in need of elucidation as respects 
both preposition and proper name. If there is further light to be had 
on this "single root" it must come from the unacknowledged employ- 
ments before the days of Papias. 

We turn, then, to Ignatius, admitted borrower from our first 
Gospel, and ask whether the amount and character of his unac- 
knowledged employments shed any light upon the form and meaning 
of the tradition as it was in 115 A.D. 

Actual mention of the name "Matthew" as authority for early 
statements derived from the Gospel is more than we can reasonably 
expect. Perhaps it is too much to expect that if Ignatius believed 
himself in possession of such an apostolic writing he would avail 
himself to larger extent of its record of the sayings and doings of 
Jesus, just as he avails himself of "commandments" of Paul with 
explicit reference to the Apostle's authority. The amount of Igna- 
tius' quotation from Mt on the assumption that he took the preposi- 
tion "according to" in the same strict sense as Papias, is certainly 
surprisingly small. 

But no less surprising, on this same assumption, is the character of 
the dependence. By far the largest part of that which Ignatius takes 
from Mt is concerned with the story of the star seen by the Magi and 
the Virgin birth. 4 Surely if Ignatius took the apostolic authorship 
of Mt in a strict sense we should expect him to adhere somewhat 
closely to the canonical form of the birth story. Such, however, is by 
no means the case. He introduces a mass of legendary accretion, 
telling us how the "mystery wrought in the silence of God was made 
manifest to the aeons." 

A star shone forth in the heaven above all the stars; and its light was 
unutterable, and its strangeness caused amazement; and all the rest of the 
constellations with the sun and moon formed themselves into a chorus 
about the star; but the star itself far outshone them all; and there was 
perplexity to know whence came this strange appearance which was so 
unlike them. From that time forward every sorcery and every spell was 
dissolved, the ignorance of wickedness vanished away, the ancient kingdom 
was pulled down, when God appeared in the likeness of man unto newness 
of everlasting life. 

But if we have no right to expect a convert from heathenism (as 
Ignatius seems to have been) 5 to abstain from a certain exuberant 
admixture of mythological fancy in his citations from the record of 
an Apostle, there is a further characteristic of Ignatius' gospel em- 

4 Ad Eph. xix.; cf. Mt 1:18-2:12. 

6 His surname 0eo06pos (ad Eph. i. 1) is more likely to have been acquired in 
pre-Christian days; cf. ad Eph. ix. 2. 



THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION 31 

ployments which on the theory of strict interpretation of the Mat- 
thean title appears stranger still. Ignatius, like Polycarp and Papias, 
is especially concerned to defend the crude doctrine of the "resur- 
rection of the flesh" 6 against the "deniers of the resurrection and 
judgment." It is true that Mt's account of the resurrection appear- 
ances fails to emphasize this factor, which is clearly brought out in 
Lk 24:39 f.; but if Ignatius regarded Mt as in the strict sense apostolic 
it is surely strange that he should ignore entirely Mt's extended proofs 
of the disappearance of the body of Jesus in favor of a story which is 
not even Lk's, but derived, as Origen informs us, from The Doctrine 
of Peter. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans (iii. 2) Ignatius proves his 
point that Jesus "was in the flesh even after the resurrection" solely 
by the parallel to Lk 24:39 f. in this Petrine apocryphon: 

When he came to Peter and his company he said to them, Lay hold 
and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body. And straight- 
way they touched him and believed, having contact with his flesh and his 
blood. 

The inference seems reasonable from the amount and character of 
Ignatius' quotations from Mt (a Gospel surely in his hands because 
of the reference in Smyrn. i. 1 to Mt 3:15), no less than from his dis- 
regard of it in favor of uncanonical report, that the Bishop of Antioch 
did not take the preposition Kara in its title in any such strict sense 
as Papias, though he would hardly do otherwise than employ the 
ordinary title if he had occasion to distinguish this Gospel from 
others. 

On the other hand there is little to show, even in the earliest em- 
ployments, whether the name "Matthew" was first superscribed 
by mistaken conjecture, or was actually the evangelist's real name 
which later readers took to mean the Apostle. This alternative will 
be considered in Chapter III. For the present we must limit ourselves 
to the unacknowledged employments. 

We cannot subscribe to Streeter's unusually early dating for Dida- 
che, but even were Didache shown to have been current in the region 
of Antioch before 115, and to use by preference Mt as "the" Gospel, 
as Basilides and Marcion speak of Lk, no material addition to our 
knowledge would be gained. Streeter advances, indeed, a highly 
dubious theory in support of his doctrine of Antioch as the birthplace 
of Mt. He tells us (FG, pp. 500-507) that 

when Mt was written, the author, or committee of authors, who produced 
it aimed at producing a new and enlarged edition of Mk, that is to say, 
Mt was intended to supersede Mk; and in the Church of its origin it no 
doubt did so for a time, though later on Mk would be reintroduced (!) 

8 So in the "Apostles' Creed," T?JS <rapfc6s, not roO 



32 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

as part of the Four Gospel canon accepted by the whole Church. Hence 
as soon as Mt was published the title "the Gospel" would naturally be 
transferred to it from Mk. 

This theory of transfer and retransfer of title is contrary to known 
fact. The truth is Mk never did disappear. On the contrary its con- 
tinued currency in all the great centers in spite of the superiorities 
of Mt and Lk is the very thing which made it unavoidable to adopt 
the distinguishing titles which all four now bear. No statement of the 
case could be better than Streeter's own (FG, p. 559) : 

We are so used to the idea of there being four Gospels, known always by 
their authors' names, that we are apt to forget the earlier period when no 
church had more than one Gospel, and when this was commonly spoken 
of, not by its author's name, but simply as "the Gospel." But the moment 
two such works began to be current side by side' in the same Church it 
became necessary to distinguish the Gospel "according to Mark" from 
that "according to Luke." Indeed, it is probably to the fortunate circum- 
stance that Mk and Lk were so early in circulation side by side that we 
owe the preservation of the names of the real authors of these works. 

Thus we are again recalled to the theory of the Antiochene origin 
of Mt, which Streeter seeks to reinforce by evidences of unacknowl- 
edged employments in the Didache, maintaining for this probably 
North-Syrian church manual a date earlier than Ignatius. 

It is probably true that Mt is more nearly "the" Gospel for Didache 
than for Ignatius, whatever the relative date. This is quite what we 
should expect if Didache were the later, because the progressive eclipse 
of Mk after the appearance of Lk, and still more after the appearance 
of Mt, is one of the most conspicuous and generally admitted phe- 
nomena of post-apostolic times. But passages found only in Mt are 
still quoted by Justin (142-150) as written in "the" gospel. The 
most, then, that can be inferred from the usage of Didache is that the 
predominant use of Mt, so strikingly manifest in 120-150 A.D. had 
already begun. 

Far more significant for its bearing on the beginnings of the Mat- 
thean tradition is the relation of our first Gospel to Lk. The two 
principal sources of each are the same, giving some color to the belief 
that both emanate from approximately the same region. Von Dob- 
schiitz, in a recent scholarly article, 7 even argues for a remote and 
indirect dependence of Mt on Lk from their opening chapters. For 
it is manifest that we do have here in both, in however discordant 
forms, the same alteration of Mk's "beginning of the gospel" by an 
epiphany of the heaven-born child, in the one case to "Magian" 
astrologers, in the other to shepherds; on the other hand the two 

7 "Matthaeus als Rabbi und Katechet," ZNW, XXVI, 3/4, 1928, pp. 338-348. 



THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION 33 

Gospels are not merely independent, but divergent to the point of 
irreconcilability. What Lk thinks of Magians may be gathered from 
his account of Simon of Gitta, the "gall-root of all bitterness" of 
Acts 8:23, or of Elymas the "Magian" at the court of Sergius Paulus, 
smitten by Paul as a "son of the devil and enemy of all righteousness." 
What Lk thinks of the Galilean tradition of the Resurrection, adopted 
by Mt to the complete exclusion of the Jerusalem tradition, may be 
gathered from the last chapter of his Gospel and the opening chapter 
of the Book of Acts. Stanton and Streeter agree in the conviction 
that these two Gospels are not only independent of one another, but 
that they must have seen the light at approximately the same date, 
since otherwise one would almost certainly show some degree of ad- 
justment to the other. As respects closeness of date Stanton and 
Streeter are doubtless right; but what, then, of the question of prove- 
nance? 
Canon Streeter holds (p. 533) that the fact that in Acts 

the connection of Peter with Antioch the proudest boast of that Church 
is completely ignored is fatal to the theory of some modern scholars that 
the book (Lk-Acts) was written in and for that Church. 

He thinks, therefore, that the ancient tradition recorded by Eusebius 
and the Monarchian Prologue, that Luke was of Antiochian parent- 
age, (' AvTioxevs T<3 yei/ei) 8 may either be set aside, or at least inter- 
preted in a sense agreeable to that other group of modern scholars 
who maintain, contrary to the ancient tradition, that Lk-Acts was 
written in and for Rome; or to others still who would substitute 
Greece as the region of Luke's ultimate abode. But was not the con- 
nection of Peter with Rome the "proudest boast" of that church? 
And if the "complete ignoring" of it in the case of Antioch is fatal 
to the claims of Antioch to be the birthplace of Acts, how can the 
equally complete ignoring of it in the case of Rome be any less fatal 
to the claims of Rome? Surely we cannot say that the writer who 
makes Antioch the mother church of all Gentile Christianity including 
Rome, and mentions no other name in connection with the planting 
of Christianity at Rome save Paul, the Apostle of Antioch (Acts 
13:1-3; 14:14), has allowed the claims of Rome to eclipse those of 
Antioch in his mind. 

"Boeotia," of whose Christianization nothing is known, may serve 
the better for that reason as a neutral zone. Perhaps the bones of the 
beloved physician do still rest there in peace. But however this may 
be, the ancient tradition of Antiochian parentage for Luke is not so 

8 The j3 reading of Acts 1 1 :28 " when we were gathered together "and late variants 
on "Lucius of Gyrene" in Acts 13:1 are probably not without relation to this 
second-century belief. 



34 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

easily disposed of. Granted that the meaning is not that Antioch 
was the birthplace of the book, but only of its author, or even only 
that of Luke's parents, there must have been some reason for making 
the statement. And what other reason could be of interest to readers 
of the Book of Acts, save its perpetuation of Antiochian data? Among 
these were the claim that the Christians were first given this name at 
Antioch, that the group which launched it were the "prophets and 
teachers" who are enumerated by name in Acts 13:1-3 as leaders of 
this mother church of Gentile Christianity, and that the final settle- 
ment of the great dispute which for a time threatened to disrupt the 
entire brotherhood of believers was obtained on the instance of An- 
tioch, which made representations on the matter to "the apostles 
and elders which were at Jerusalem"? Surely the tradition of Anti- 
ochian parentage for Lk has no little support from the internal evi- 
dence of his work. 

But let it be supposed, for argument's sake, that the book Lk-Acts 
was actually written at Rome, or in Achaia. At all events its traditions 
were not gathered either in Greece or Italy. True, the earliest of all 
Lk's material, the so-called "We" document underlying Acts 15:35- 
28:31, might have been obtained at Rome. This second part of Acts 
constitutes an extension of the original story, the first part being mainly 
centered on Peter. It includes the further conquests of the gospel 
under Paul in the West, after the settlement of the great question of 
the times in the Apostolic Council. Second Acts (to adopt Torrey's 
convenient term) is Pauline and Greek from the bottom up, with 
only a superficial veneering from the hand of the editor. But whence 
does Lk derive the oriental narratives of First Acts? All this, from 
Lk 1:4 to Acts 12:25 with slight exceptions, is Petrine in point of 
view and Aramaic in sources and language-coloration. We are not 
now concerned with the minuter source-analysis of Lk-Acts, but by 
and large the statement will meet general approval that the main 
sources of First Acts are Petrine and Syrian, Many insist that it is 
possible to demonstrate that the entire mass Acts 1 :1-15 :34 is trans- 
lated direct from Aramaic documents. But Aramaic documents 
certainly did not originate in Rome or in Greece. Moreover it is these 
which furnish the substructure. The Greek material, which centers 
upon Paul's later missionary career expanding the diary of some 
travel companion, however prior in date, is attached as supplement. 
Probably earliest of all Lk's sources in origin, it is obviously super- 
imposed as the latest addition to his book. 

Wherever, then, we place the final composition of Lk-Acts the 
dominant and basic sources of the writer are Petrine and Syrian, at 
least for the Gospel and I Acts. Taking these internal phenomena into 
consideration along with the ancient tradition we have a very strong 



THE ROOT OF THE TRADITION 35 

case for the origin at Antioch of at least the type of gospel story repre- 
sented in Lk. l:4-Acts 15:33. 

How then account for the development at the same place and approx- 
imately the same date of a type of gospel story also Petrine and Syrian, 
but irreconcilable with Lk's in many important particulars? How, 
above all, will it be possible to maintain that "the author or com- 
mittee of authors" who produced the anonymous Gospel of Mt 
toward the close of the century at Antioch were able completely to 
silence the claims both of Mk and the Antiochian-Petrine type of tra- 
dition current in that church to be "the Gospel"? What gave them 
power to set in circulation their own anonymous compilation as alone 
entitled to that exclusive claim? At Rome it is not surprising to find 
a later, fuller, better written story partially supplanting the cruder 
"Gospel according to Mk" under the distinctive title "Gospel ac- 
cording to Lk." This had already taken place before the Marcionite 
disruption in 140. But both Mk and Lk seem to have been in turn 
eclipsed at Rome by the still higher prestige of a gospel from the 
East claiming to be "according to Mt." That also is undisputed. 
Rome is a focus of dissemination for both. But it is something else, 
and far more improbable, that Streeter imagines as taking place at 
Antioch. We are asked to believe that in this ancient home of Jewish 
and Gentile Christianity, where at least the Gospel of Mk was al- 
ready known and honored; also the writing known to modern critics 
as the Second Source; also the Teaching of Peter and (later) the Gospel 
according to Peter; besides such "narratives" (Si^y^o-eis) as Lk re- 
fers to in his preface and utilizes to make up much of his Gospel and 
the larger part of Acts 1-15, an author or committee of authors was 
able to introduce a new compilation not under the name of any 
apostle, but quite "anonymously," and that this work immediately 
leaped to such pre-eminence as to require no name at all to distin- 
guish it from its predecessors, but became at once "the" Gospel par 
eminence. It was already such, we are told, "not later than A.D. 
100" (!) to the author of the Didache. Less than a score of years 
thereafter it was still such, it is claimed, to Ignatius. 

How any author or committee of authors could accomplish this 
feat without the aid of any ascription to an apostle Canon Streeter 
does not explain. Neither does he offer any explanation how the false 
ascription came to be subsequently attached. If, however, we are 
willing to take Antioch not as the first but the second stage in the 
history of this Gospel's rapid advancement, holding that ascription 
to the Apostle Matthew (not necessarily in the narrower sense of 
later times) formed part of the appeal which gave it rapid ascendancy 
in the Church Catholic, difficulties will disappear. In our discussion 
of the two prefatory chapters of the Gospel, chapters prefixed to the 



36 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

story of the public ministry as related by Mk, further reasons will 
be set forth for the belief already avowed, that the original birthplace 
of this compilation was among "the nations of the East," perhaps 
at Edessa, perhaps in the neighborhood of that community of Ara- 
maic-speaking Jewish Christians eastward of Antioch at Aleppo 
(Beroea-Chalybis) known as Nazarenes. Its superimposed tincture 
of Aramaic tradition would thus be accounted for. 

Streeter cites as "an infinitesimal point in favour of an Antiochene 
origin" for Mt that while the stater varied in weight and vahie in 
different districts "the commentators say that only in Antioch and 
Damascus (italics ours) did the official stater exactly equal two didrach- 
mae, as is implied in Mt xvii. 24-27" (p. 504). Between Damascus, 
home of dissident Jewish sects in pre-Christian times, whose Christian 
community antedates even the conversion of Paul, and Edessa, 
capital of the first Christian kingdom, there was a whole realm of 
cultured Greek cities such as Apamea on the Orontes, where Greek- 
speaking Christian communities toward the close of the first century 
must have had relations on the one side with Antioch, on the other 
with the Nazarenes. For the origin of our anonymous first Gospel 
we must move backward along the line which its author traces as the 
approach of the Magi, guided by the miraculous star which led them 
"from the East" to Bethlehem. Among Greek-speaking Christians 
of Jewish descent in such a city as Apamea, or Edessa, where star- 
worship was the principal heathen cult, we might find an environment 
which would account for the peculiarities of Mt, whether as regards 
contents or traditional title and dissemination. At Antioch the only 
document we can imagine for one moment as having come into circu- 
lation anonymously under the simple designation "the" Gospel, is 
that precanonical source blended with Mk by both Mt and Lk which 
in the judgment of nearly all critics is at least older than any of our 
canonical Gospels, if not actually employed by Mk as well as Mt and 
Lk. This document S was almost certainly anonymous and non- 
apostolic. When used by Mt and Lk it was a Greek document, 
though bearing marks of translation from Aramaic. This writing, 
which furnishes the modern critic his best evidences for the teaching 
of Jesus under the artificial symbol Q, may well have circulated at 
Antioch before the adoption of the Gospels entitled "According to" 
Mk, Mt, or Lk as simply "the" Gospel. We are still at a loss to at- 
tach to it any author's name. Those who insist upon the exercise of 
historical imagination in this direction may apply to S the name of 
Philip "the evangelist" of Caesarea, the friend of Paul. 



CHAPTER III 

ASCRIPTION TO MATTHEW AND EARLY 
DISSEMINATION 

THUS far we have not accounted for the most vital and important 
element of the whole tradition, the single clause "According to Mat- 
thew, " which as understood by men of the period of Papias really in- 
volved all the rest. We are now driven to ask, even before we take 
up the problem of the Gospel's acceptance in Asia Minor and Rome: 
In what sense was this title originally intended; and how came it 
to be applied to an anonymous writing which does not purport 
to be from Matthew, and certainly was not the composition of any 
Apostle? 

In my article written in 1900 for The Expositor (VIII, No. 118) en- 
titled "Why 'According to Matthew'?" it was shown first (pp. 247- 
305) that the common assumption that the name "Matthew" was 
transferred to our canonical Gospel from some earlier, incorporated 
source known as "the Logia" is unfounded and improbable. Such 
was not the meaning of Papias, for neither he nor his contemporaries 
had the remotest suspicion of the existence of any other Ur-Matthaeus 
than simply the Greek Gospel in "Hebrew" dress. Nor can escape 
be found from this undeniable fact in the conjecture of a misunder- 
stood utterance of "the Elder"; for Papias does not mention "the 
Elder" in this connection, nor does he give any reason to suppose he 
derives his statement regarding Mt from the "Elder. " Had acquaint- 
ance with such an apostolic writing been evinced earlier students 
of Papias than nineteenth-century critics would have discovered the 
fact. Modern critics have indeed demonstrated the existence of a 
Second Source (S) independently employed by Mt and Lk to supply 
the deficiencies of Mk as regards teaching material. But the name 
"Matthew" cannot have been transferred from this forgotten source, 
because had it borne this name the Source would not have been for- 
gotten. 

The fact that S was not an apostolic writing, and did not bear the 
name of an Apostle, can be doubly proved. (1) The internal evidence 
of the Q material testifies convincingly that it was not, and did not 
purport to be, the writing of an Apostle or other eyewitness. On this 
ground even so ardent a supporter of the theory of an incorporated 
Book of the Logia as the veteran Godet would prefer to speak of 

37 



38 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

its author as "not an apostle, but the apostolate." Taking up this 
question on p. 217 of his Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. II 
(Engl. 1899), he gives his judgment as follows: 

As regards the book of the Logia I think that, properly speaking, the 
author was not a single individual. There was no single man, or even single 
apostle, to whose memory and intellect the composition of such a document 
could have been exclusively confided. 

(2) Whatever we may think of this theory of joint authorship of S 
by "the apostolate, " the external evidence of Lk 1 :l-4 is fatal to any 
idea of its having been composed by Matthew or any other Apostle, 
or even by any official body of first-hand witnesses. Lk is explicit in 
distinguishing his own narrative, as well as those of certain predeces- 
sors on whose work he hopes to improve, from the testimony of the 
"eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." These had "delivered" 
it by word of mouth. Under the term "ministers of the word" Lk 
almost certainly means to include Mark, whom he describes as 
"minister" to Barnabas and Paul in Acts 13:5. The implication is 
that Mark's testimony, like that of the other "eye-witnesses and 
ministers" was oral. We must therefore infer that Lk understood 
the title "Gospel according to (Kara) Mk" in the sense "drawn 
up according to the teaching of"; for his employment of this writing 
is beyond dispute. It is not such, however, as we should expect him 
to accord to the first-hand written testimony of an eyewitness. 

But Lk also uses in common with Mt the Second Source. In fact 
S is to him, and still more to Mt, distinctly "second" to Mk. Even 
as respects "order," which was regarded as early as "the Elder's" 
time as the weak point of Mk, both our canonical evangelists treat S 
as of inferior authority. Unless S is ignored altogether in his Pre- 
face Lk classes it among the "narratives" (Si^tras) drawn up by 
men of the second generation who received what they relate from 
"eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." It is therefore insuppos- 
able that either Mt or Lk can have regarded S as the work of an 
Apostle or eyewitness. Internal and external evidence taken together 
exclude absolutely the idea of Matthean authorship, reputed or real, 
for the Second Source of our Gospel. A fortiori the idea of a transfer 
of the title from source to incorporating work is excluded. S cannot 
have imparted what it did not possess. 

Disproof of this form of attempted rescue for the tradition by a 
theory of transfer of the name from some nuclear source leaves us 
under all the greater obligation to account for the application of the 
title "According to Matthew" to the writing that has come down to 
us under that designation. In the Expositor article above mentioned 
an explanation was attempted. Its form was dictated by the challenge 



ASCRIPTION TO MATTHEW 39 

of Zahn expressed as follows at the beginning of section 54 of his 
Introduction (Engl., Vol. II, p. 506) : 

The tax-gatherer Levi must be identified with the Apostle Matthew . . . 
because there is no conceivable reason (italics ours) why a writer should 
identify the Apostle Matthew, in whom later he shows no particular in- 
terest, inasmuch as he is not mentioned again anywhere in his book, with 
a man of another name, the account of whose call in the other two reports 
which have come down to us is in no way connected with the apostles. 

Zahn refers, of course, to the curious phenomenon of the text of 
Mk. 2:13-17 (=Mt 9:9-13 = Lk 5:27-35), where the tax-gatherer 
Levi, son of Alphaeus, appears to be called as a fifth apostle after 
Andrew and Peter, James and John; and yet in the list of the Twelve, 
subjoined but a few verses below (Mk 3:13-19), Levi entirely fails 
to appear! 

Lk at this point takes over Mk unaltered, corroborating the strange 
text as given by our best Ms. authorities. But the early, though ar- 
bitrary, Western text of Mk attempts a correction. Noting that a 
"James son of Alphaeus" appears in the list, of whom nothing fur- 
ther is said, it substitutes the name "James" for "Levi" in the story 
of the call, an obvious bit of harmonization which every textual critic 
must reject as secondary. Zahn agrees, of course, in rejecting this 
harmonization attempted by the /8 text of Mk 2:14; but he thinks 
the (probably) derived reading of Mt 9:9, which dismisses entirely 
"Levi son of Alphaeus" and substitutes "Matthew," should be taken 
to represent historical fact. My article gave reasons for holding that 
in reality Mt 9 :9 is itself dependent on the Western reading adopted 
by the same writer in Mt 10:3. The real question is, Why do we find 
6 TeXfovys attached after the name "Matthew" in Mt 10:3? 

For "Levi son of Alphaeus" is not so easily dismissed. In my 
article it was pointed out (p. 307) that no example exists of two cur- 
rent Jewish names, such as Joseph and Simeon, or Levi and Mat- 
thew, being given to the same individual. It was also pointed out that 
even if an example could be found of such a substituted name we 
should expect mention of it by the evangelist, who reports the sur- 
names of Peter, James, and John. This observation would seem to be 
fatal to Zahn's explanation of the Matthean substitution, an explana- 
tion commonly adopted by modern apologists for the tradition. 
Origen was certainly right in refusing the attempted identification 
and maintaining that Levi the publican was one individual, Matthew 
the Apostle another. 1 

My Expositor article undertook further to explain how the name 
"Matthew" came to be substituted for "James son of Alphaeus" 

1 Ctr. Gels. I, 62. 



40 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

in Mt 9 :9. The change is probably not arbitrary, but rests, as stated, 
upon the List of the Twelve adopted in Mt 10:2-4. This Matthean 
list at least differs widely from the Markan, if it be not actually taken 
from a separate source. However this may be, as now incorporated 
in Mt it has been adjusted to Mk by certain comments. Among these 
the words "the publican" (6 reXw^s) are inserted after the name 
"Matthew" in the form of a gloss. But, as often happens with ex- 
planatory glosses, its position is open to some question. If originally 
written on the margin it may well be simply a reflection of the well 
known and extremely early Western reading of Mk 2:14 just referred 
to. In that case it was not originally intended to attach to the name of 
"Matthew," but to that which immediately follows it, "James son 
of Alphaeus." In other words the gloss merely incorporates the 
"Western" variant of Mk 2:14. 

With these conclusions the late Canon Stanton in a private letter 
to the writer expressed a disposition to agree. But he expressed dis- 
sent from the application of them to the origin of the title "According 
to Matthew. " Objections from such a source cannot lightly be dis- 
missed. 

In answer to Zahn my article had offered it as a "conceivable" ex- 
planation that the remarkable difference between the Gospels as 
respects the call of the fifth apostle had been noted in antiquity, and 
that ancient scribes drew from it precisely the same inference which 
Zahn and the apologists for tradition draw today, viz., that the evan- 
gelist was as it were "whispering in the reader's ear: 'I am the real 
Levi of whom Mk relates this; I had two names, one Levi, the other 
Matthew.' " Zahn's assertion was that "there is no conceivable 
reason" save identity of the persons why the change should have been 
made in Mt 9:9 from "Levi son of Alphaeus" to "Matthew. " Simply 
as an answer to Zahn the explanation offered should suffice. The 
equivalence Matthew = Levi is improbable if not impossible. Sur- 
names, nicknames, and names drawn from another language offer 
no analogy. It is, therefore, "conceivable" that the title "According 
to Matthew" rests solely upon ancient conjecture making the same 
unwarranted inferences as modern apologetic. Conceivably the change 
in Mt 9:9 might have given rise to the theory of authorship. 

But Stanton was justified in drawing a distinction between "origina- 
tion" and "defense." The critic may well query whether conjecture 
would suffice to originate the tradition, however conducive to its es- 
tablishment after promulgation on other grounds. 

For this reason the question "Why according ;fco Matthew"? must 
be regarded as still open. We cannot indeed any longer attach to the 
name "Matthew" any of the cherished inferences concerning occupa- 
tion, and hence of qualification for his task as evangelist; for the 



ASCRIPTION TO MATTHEW 41 

tax-gatherer's name was really "Levi son of Alphaeus, " as both Mk 
and Lk attest, to say nothing of the corroborative testimony of the 
Gospel according to Peter. (Closing words of fragment.) Matthew 
and Levi are not identical, and the substitution in Mt 9:9 must be 
regarded as mere early harmonization, whether along the line above 
indicated or some other. This means that the name "Matthew" is 
for us simply a name and nothing more. 2 It is far from probable that 
it was ever attached in any sense to S. When originally attached to 
our first Gospel it may have referred to some primitive Jewish Chris- 
tian, to us totally unknown, who bore this quite common Jewish 
name. Again, if it referred to the Apostle, this need not have been in 
the sense of individual authorship but, as Plummer suggests, in the 
sense "drawn up according to the teaching of." In that case we 
may imagine the existence of a "tradition, since forgotten, of some 
activity of the seventh (Mt 10:3 eighth) apostle in the region whence 
this writing comes. Indeed some confirmation of this has been sought 
in the fact that late and dependent Aramaic gospels also make play 
with the name of "Matthew." But the dependence of the heretical 
gospels which make "Matthew" or "Matthias" their authority on 
our canonical Mt is so evident that no inference can be drawn from 
the fragments to support the idea that independent traditions existed 
at the time regarding evangelistic activities on the part of either 
apostle. Conjecture, and conjecture based upon the passage Mt 9:9, 
is the most probable source of the title. But the process was probably 
less direct than at first suggested. The transfer from Mt 9 :9 to super- 
scription was more roundabout, involving an outside factor. A para- 
ble from nature may illustrate. 

The destructive insect which attacks the white pine passes the 
first stages of its life as a parasite upon the wild currant or goose- 
berry. Only at maturity is it conveyed to the stately pine. Just as 
the lowly shrub intervenes in the life-cycle of the pine-blister so may 
we trace the probable course of the pseudonym prefixed to Mt. Its 
origin must be sought primarily among the dependent heretical 
gospels which sprang into being early in the second century in answer 
to the'sweeping conquests of Mk, Lk, and Mt. Full discussion of these 
postcanonical gospels, in so far as they are related to Mt must be 
reserved for an Appended Note (Note VI). But something may here 
be said regarding the Ebionite writing which among other designa- 
tions applied to it by the orthodox was also known as "The Gospel 
according to Matthew, " later writers explaining that it was not the 
authentic Mt, but "garbled and mutilated," as was indeed the fact. 
But let us again resort to analogy. 

Among vivisectionists and educators the operation of headgrafting, 

2 See Wernle, SF, p. 229. 



42 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

or transplanting of gray heads to green shoulders, has not as yet been 
attended with success. At least if, to use medical parlance, "the 
operation was a success" the patients failed to survive. However, 
among the restorers of antique statuary substitution for lost or 
damaged heads has often been effected with general satisfaction. 
Results would naturally be even more gratifying if the transfer 
affected only literary headings, which do not require the same nicety 
of adjustment. The question next to be considered is whether we have 
not sufficient evidence to warrant the belief that our canonical Mt has 
undergone such a process of caption transfer at an early date in its 
history. In fact there is some reason, as we shall see in Ch. IV, to 
believe that the operation did take place at Rome about 120 A.D. at 
the hands of a group of biblical experts. Of the two patients concerned 
the older and stronger survived, the younger and weaker succumbed 
to the process of decapitation. 

These things are spoken in allegory. In reality councils never take 
the initiative, they either attempt to suppress or else make permanent 
through official endorsement some suggestion whose origin is traceable 
only to the elusive on dit of irresponsible popular belief. The alleged 
council de recipiendis libris at Rome in 120 A.D., 3 if it really occurred, 
merely tipped the scales in favor of what was on the whole a true 
judgment. As between the two claimants, canonical Mt and the 
apokryphon which based its claim to be known as "According to 
Matthew" on a logion borrowed from Mt 9:9, canonical Mt was both 
the older and (from the doctrinal standpoint) the more deserving. 
But we must again turn to the situation as it stood in the age suc- 
ceeding to that of the Synoptic writers. 

The reference to "Matthias" as a traditor of gospel material as- 
cribed by Hippolytus to Basilides (125-135) only serves to illustrate 
the tendency of the times to seek attachment for evangelic story to 
apostolic names. Much more to the point is the statement twice 
made by Irenaeus (Haer. I, xxvi. 2 and III, xi. 7), that the Ebionites, 
who "repudiate Paul, calling him an apostate from the Law," use as 
their only gospel " that which is According to Matthew. " The state- 
ment probably rests on Justin, who in turn must have drawn from 
Palestinian authority, for neither Irenaeus nor Justin could personally 
have had knowledge of the obscure sect seated at Kokaba in Basani- 
tis. It is repeated almost verbatim by Eusebius (HE, III, xxvii. 4) and 
naturally recurs with variations and attempted explanations in sub- 
sequent writers. 

3 In pre-Christian Rome such councils were no novelty. A board of fifteen mem- 
bers had custody over the sacred Sibylline books. In the reign of Tiberius the 
board and the Senate were reprimanded for admitting a writing to this canon on 
insufficient grounds. 



ASCRIPTION TO MATTHEW 43 

But the intensely Jewish-christian, anti-Pauline sect of Ebionites 
certainly did not use our canonical Mt. Nor can their gospel have been 
Ev. Naz., for the Nazarenes of North Syria were chiefly distinguished 
from the Ebionite Jewish-christians of South Syria just by their 
hearty endorsement of the mission work of Paul and their tolerant 
attitude toward Gentile Christians. For the Nazarenes admitted to 
fellowship those who did not, like themselves, observe the ritual 
precepts of Mosaism. 4 If the late and confused evidence of Epipha- 
nius can be accepted this Ebionite gospel (which like other compo- 
sitions intended to supply local needs would be known among the 
Ebionites themselves simply as "the" Gospel) was the same else- 
where called "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Ev. Hebr.). 

Deferring other problems connected with it to Appended Note VI, 
the question to be raised here is only, Why was the Ebionite gospel 
also called both by Irenaeus (in two passages) and by others down to 
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who either depends on Irenaeus or on the 
common source of both (Haer. Fab. II, i. bis), "The Gospel according 
to Matthew"? The answer to this question not only bears upon that 
of the nature and date of the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
but may also serve to explain the present difficulty regarding the 
application to the canonical Mt in the earlier decades of the second 
century of a name which certainly does not properly belong to it, 
yet which (in the judgment of well-qualified scholars) cannot have 
originated in direct conjecture from Mt 9:9 compared with Mk 2:14. 

Epiphanius among the rest states distinctly that the Ebionite 
gospel, known to some as Ev. Hebr., was called by others "The Gospel 
according to Matthew. " He declares the work, however, to be not 
the true and authentic Mt, but "garbled" (vevoQevpfvov) and "muti- 
lated" (^Kpwny/oiaoyAei/ov). Others met the difficulty by postulating 
two kinds of Ebionite heretics, one branch using the authentic Mt, 
the other the spurious! 

Epiphanius' charge is abundantly proved by the citations he makes 
from the work, showing the writing from which his extracts are made 
to belong to the class which we may designate as "synoptica" by dis- 
tinction from the famous " Diatessaron" of Tatian. For Tatian's 
work, dating from 160 to 170, was a mosaic of the four canonical 
Gospels ingeniously dovetailed together. But Tatian's was not the 
first composite gospel. It had been preceded by certain secondary 
products of the oriental method of book-making by amalgamation. 
These composites blended together two or more of our Synoptic 
Gospels in various heretical interests. Indeed our own Gospels of Mt 
and Lk are themselves products of this same time-honored method 

4 Cf. Justin, Dial, xlvii. on tolerant (Nazarene) vs. intolerant (Ebionite) 
Jewish Christians. 



44 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of amalgamation, since both consist of a combination of Mk with a 
Second Source (S). In both Mk is basic, this outline together with 
SQ supplying the mass of the book while the evangelists themselves 
each add a small amount of other material (P), though Mt's sup- 
plements are greatly inferior both quantitatively and qualitatively 
to Lk's. 

Of these "synoptica" of the period before the Diatessaron the 
best extant example is the Gospel according to Peter, still used at the 
close of the second century in the church in Rhossus near Antioch. 
Ev. Petr. combined Mt with Mk and Lk, adding traces from other 
gospels, but was excluded from church use by Serapion the metro- 
politan bishop about 195 A.D., on account of certain traits indicative 
of docetic heresy. A large fragment, covering the whole passion 
narrative and ending with the opening sentences of a resurrection 
story probably based on the lost ending of Mk, was recovered in 
1887 from a tomb in Akhmim. 

But we must return to Epiphanius and his "garbled and muti- 
lated" Mt which the extracts clearly show to have been a "synopti- 
con" of the type of Ev. Petr., but far less innocent. The following 
extract will show that it actually did bear toward Mt a relation 
similar to that of Marcion's gospel to the authentic Lk. (Panar. 
XXX, 13): 

There was a certain man named Jesus, he was about thirty years old, 
who made choice of us. And he came down to Capernaum and entered 
into the house of Simon surnamed Peter. And he opened his mouth and 
said: Passing along by the Sea of Tiberias I chose for myself John and 
James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew 5 and Thaddeus and 
Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot; and thee Matthew, sitting at the toll- 
booth, I called and thou didst follow me. I therefore intend you to be twelve 
apostles as a testimony to Israel. 

After this followed an account of the baptism of Jesus by John related 
in the Synoptic form and language, but with certain sectarian pecu- 
liarities. 

Clearly, from its beginning (always the source of book designations 
in Semitic practice) this writing, whatever its nature, would inevitably 
be designated, wherever it came into comparison with other gospels, 
either "Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles, " or (since Matthew 
is specially selected to play a distinctive part, probably connected 
with his ability as tax-collector to handle the pen) " Gospel according 
to Matthew. " From the limited group of Jewish Christians among 
whom it circulated in Trans Jordan and near the Dead Sea it would 

5 Two pairs of names from the "twelve" appear to have fallen out at this point 
in transcription. 



ASCRIPTION TO MATTHEW 45 

naturally be known to the Christians of northern Egypt as "The 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, " for a provincial gospel of Gnostic 
type, also Greek, was distinguished from the Ebionite writing by the 
designation "The Gospel according to the Egyptians." 

We must defer for consideration in an Appended Note (No. VI) 
the question whether (and if so when and from whom) this Ebionite 
second-century apokryphon received the appellation "Gospel accord- 
ing to Matthew." Certainly this could only occur at a very early 
date, not later than the second decade of the second century. More- 
over the appellation cannot have been given by the Ebionites them- 
selves to their gospel; for it is explicitly stated in repeated references 
that the community in question tolerated no other. To them, conse- 
quently, the writing would be known simply as "the" Gospel. Again, 
no outsider acquainted with the canonical Mt, if this latter then bore 
the name, would have dreamed of applying to the crude heretical 
amalgam the same name already attached to the much more highly 
esteemed and earlier Gospel from which it obviously draws much of 
its material. Why, then, should the name "Gospel according to 
Matthew" have been applied to the Ebionite writing? Two alter- 
natives appear equally inadmissible. We may dismiss as erroneous 
all the testimony, including the two passages from Irenaeus, which 
declares that this designation was applied to it, or we may hold that 
the Ebionites themselves, abandoning their exclusive attitude toward 
the canonical Gospels, changed their mode of reference, and instead 
of speaking of their gospel as "the" gospel, began to give it a designa- 
tion which however apostolic made the work nevertheless only one 
of several. The extreme improbability that the Ebionites themselves 
are responsible for the designation "according to Matthew" will be 
apparent. 

Let it be assumed, then, for the argument's sake, that Irenaeus and 
the second-century informants on whom he depends (for Irenaeus 
personally can have had no knowledge of the Ebionites) were quite 
in error, and that the designation "according to Matthew" was not 
applied by anyone to the Ebionite composite. In that case we at least 
have a conspicuous example of precisely that kind of conjecture for 
which Stanton maintained there was no evidence. For it is quite 
evident from the fragment above-cited, (be the work a second- or a 
fourth-century product), that the compiler of Ev. Hebr. is using Mt 9:9 
with the purpose of suggesting that the Apostle Matthew whom Jesus had 
called from the collection of taxes could and did serve the appointed 
body of the Twelve as the recorder of their "testimony to Israel." The 
Ebionite compiler himself doubtless wished and expected his work 
to be called "the" Gospel. But he also manifestly wished it to be 
understood that its contents had been committed by Jesus personally 



46 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

to the Twelve, with special designation of "Matthew" as their quali- 
fied scribe and recorder. Readers not of the Ebionite circle, and not 
acquainted with any other gospel claiming this name, would inevitably 
ascribe its (reputed) authorship to the Apostle Matthew. 

On the other hand the assumption of error on the part of Irenaeus, 
while it avoids the immediate difficulty, does so only at the cost of 
involving us in new perplexity. We shall still be under obligation to 
find a primitive reporter of Ebionism so ignorant of the facts as to 
suppose that these bitterly reactionary and intensely anti-Pauline 
heretics used as their only gospel our canonical Mt, rejecting all 
others. 

Consider, then, a further alternative. At some period so early that 
our canonical Mt had not yet become generally known by its present 
title, but still late enough to be used along with Lk by the Ebionite 
compiler, unknown persons who read this paragraph of the heretical 
composite took the writer at his word, so far as finding a distinctive 
name for the writing was concerned. It was called "according to 
Matthew" just as the Gospels of Judas Thomas and others were 
called by the names of particular apostles, without necessary ac- 
knowledgment of their authenticity. Previous to the unwarranted 
claims of canonical Mt to this title (claims not even suggested by any 
part of its contents) it may well have been sometimes conferred upon 
the Ebionite composite which did purport to be written by Matthew 
in fulfilment of the intention of Jesus himself. Of course neither 
canonical nor uncanonical gospel has any historical claim to the 
name, nor is Matthew any more likely than Bartholomew or Thomas 
to have had skill with the pen. However, so far as priority of con- 
jecture is concerned as between Mt and Ev. Eb. it can only be awarded 
to the Ebionite composition, dependent as it is. The title fits here, 
and can be completely accounted for by the writer's use of Mt 9:9. 
It does not in the least fit the canonical writing, and can only have 
been taken over from some other. If the process of transfer can be 
dated late enough to allow for dissemination of the rumor that the 
Ebionites possessed a gospel purporting to have been written by the 
Apostle Matthew the transfer is easily explained. On this question 
we refer to Appended Note VI. 

The outcome of our search for residual truth in the tradition of 
Matthean authorship is meagre. It is indeed certain that the title 
"According to Matthew" was not at first attached to this Gospel. 
Neither did it come to it from S, which certainly did not possess it. 
In the next chapter an attempt will be made to determine somewhat 
more closely when and how the transfer may have been made per- 
manently effective. 

Let us turn meantime from the difficult problem of the origin of 



ASCRIPTION TO MATTHEW 47 

the title to the momentous consequences entailed. For to the title, 
affixed to Mt at some period probably later than Ignatius, we must 
largely ascribe the triumphal march of this relatively late and Jewish- 
christian Gospel across the whole mission field of Paul from Antioch 
to Rome, a conquest which made Mt within a half-century after we 
can first positively identify it in church use, the dominant and pre- 
ferred authority throughout the Greek-speaking Christian world. 
This advance over the ground evangelized by Paul is a phenomenon 
of much more than academic interest. Significant for the history of 
the development of Christianity in this obscure post-apostolic age 
it is of even greater concern in practical application. For the reaction 
which it connotes from the inspired insight and freedom of Paul 
toward post-apostolic neo-legalism has left its impress on the Church 
catholic down to the present day. Of this reaction the growing in- 
fluence of Mt was perhaps more a symptom than a cause. Yet the 
predominance this neo-legalistic gospel so quickly attained has not 
been without lasting effect in swerving nascent Christianity back 
toward the spirit, beliefs, and institutions of the Synagogue. 

The long struggle against Gnostic heresy, the "acute Helleniza- 
tion of Christianity," as Harnack calls it, was already beginning. 
To our evangelist, as to his contemporary, Jude, it takes the form of 
a battle against "lawlessness" (di/o/*ia), a battle for the command- 
ments "once for all delivered to the saints." Perhaps the course of 
events admitted no such alternative as a justly proportioned Helleni- 
zation, but compelled a choice between Gnostic theosophy and a 
reversion toward Judaism disguised under Christian forms. If so, 
doubtless it was better that the Church catholic should become neo- 
legalistic and apocalyptic, rather than antinomian and theosophic. 
Our evangelist fulminates against the hypocrisy of "scribes and Phari- 
sees," but the "righteousness" which he commends is little more 
than that of scribes and Pharisees raised to a higher scale. His concep- 
tion of the teaching of Jesus is a Torah of Moses made over in prep- 
aration for the messianic age about to dawn. His ideal evangelist 
is a "scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, " 
who brings out of his treasury of teachings "things old and new." 
Mt's idea of a gospel of world-redemption is "the law and the proph- 
ets" of former generations plus the new commandment of Jesus. 
His apostolic commission is the task of teaching all men everywhere 
to obey it. 6 

The danger of "acute Hellenization, " or "lawlessness," was 
averted; but at the cost of surrender of much of the ground which 
Jesus and Paul had won from Synagogue biblicism. The wild and 

6 Cf. the article of von Dobschutz above referred to (ZNW, XXVII, 3/4) "Mat- 
thaus als Rabbi and Katechet. " 



48 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

fantastic protest of Marcion produced only disruption. It made 
real appreciation of Paul harder rather than easier for a Church- 
catholic bent on ecclesiastical organization and authority. Thus for 
fifty years Greek Christianity, outwardly bitter in its opposition to 
Judaism, imbibed inwardly its spirit, and copied its beliefs and insti- 
tutions. 

To follow the spread of our first Gospel, well fitted as it was to the 
demands of the times and supported by an ill founded, but undis- 
puted and unrivalled claim to apostolic authority, is to gain new in- 
sight into that complex of movements and influences which have made 
the historic faith what it is. From the eastern border of Greek-speak- 
ing Christianity, the region nearest in contact with Judaism, whether 
as respects outward polemic or latent affinity, it followed the foot- 
steps of Paul to Greece and Rome. Within a decade or so after 
Ignatius' journey from Antioch through Asia Minor to his martyrdom 
in Rome we find it advancing in all quarters toward a position of 
unrivalled primacy. Only by slow degrees, toward the close of the 
second century, does the fourth Gospel attain in some regions to 
similar standing, this too only after a period of opposition so intense 
as to lead some in the Church to reject the entire body of writings 
ascribed to John. 

Even after Irenaeus had made acceptance of the "Fourfold 
Gospel" (evayyeXiov TerpdfjLop(j>ov) the touchstone of orthodoxy, any 
other position for Mt than at the head of the group is highly excep- 
tional, and the exception appears to be based on doctrinal valuation 
rather than any question of Mt's claim to be first in order of date. 
Moffatt (Introd., p. 14) lists seven different arrangements of the 
Gospels found in manuscripts or implied in patristic references. In 
only two of these does Mt take any other place than first, and in 
these two it is preceded only by Jn. The Coptic versions have an 
order logically commendable in that it does not break the connection 
between Lk and Acts but places the Gospels in the order Jn, Mt, 
Mk, Lk. Chrysostom and minuscule 19 have the order Jn, Mt, Lk, 
Mk, an order according to valuation. Irenaeus, who in point of date 
places Mt first, has an order Jn, Lk, Mt, Mk in Haer. Ill, xi. 8, to 
agree with his idea of the symbolism of the four living creatures of 
Rev. 4 :7. But these orders giving precedence to Jn are highly excep- 
tional and can usually be accounted for. In general the common or- 
der of today, the official Roman order of the Muratorianum (c. 185) 
reflects the feeling and practice of the second century. Papias (pace 
Streeter) is anything but an exception to the general rule from his 
time to the end of the century. It is scarcely too much to say of the 
common practice in Papias' time that Mt is always the Gospel em- 
ployed, unless the particular quotation wanted is not to be found 



ASCRIPTION TO MATTHEW 49 

in it. Even on the moot point of "order" the same holds true. Critics 
who ask us to believe that Papias is using Jn (!) as a standard when 
criticizing the order of Mk (he is really defending Mk against the 
imputation of "the Elder") confuse the issues of 140 A.D. with those 
cf 190. It is certainly the order of Mt, which (however artificial and 
incorrect from the point of view of modern criticism) was regarded 
by Papias as the order of an apostolic eyewitness. It is this which 
was made the standard by early harmonists. 7 Stanton's well-con- 
sidered judgment (GHD, I, p. 276) that "In the case of our first 
Gospel the signs of early use are specially abundant" is easily within 
the demonstrable facts. 

7 So Ammonius (c/. Zahn, Introd., sec. 50, p. 420) and Tatian. 



CHAPTER IV 
STEPS TOWARD CANONIZATION 

WE have already observed (p. 47) as "one of the most striking phe- 
nomena of 120-150 A.D. " the rapid advance of Mt toward an undis- 
puted predominance in the slowly forming canon of the four Gospels. 
Its intrinsic adaptation to the special needs of the Church catholic 
in this period of struggle against "acute Hellenization " accompanied 
by dangerous moral laxity, most of all the bold claims made on its 
behalf to apostolic authority, go far to explain this advance, apart 
from any special evidences accessible to modern enquiry of particular 
stages in the process. 

Nevertheless two data of significance survive which are worthy of 
special notice for their bearing on probable steps in this process of 
quasi-canonization, before passing on to inferences deducible from 
the text itself. The first of these is a curious group of synchronisms 
attached to a fifth-century Syriac document concerned with the 
controversy in which Epiphanius had borne a conspicuous part re- 
garding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The other is a quotation 
from Claudius Apollinaris, successor to Papias in the see of Hierapolis 
in Phrygia, dealing with the so-called Paschal controversy, a fragment 
preserved in the Paschal Chronicle which mentions "Matthew" by 
name as an apostolic and authoritative writing, and implies a method 
(not clearly defined in the fragment) by which Apollinaris felt able 
to harmonize what to some members of his flock appeared (and to 
moderns still appear) the conflicting statements of "Matthew" with 
some other Gospel not named. This other of course, can only be the 
fourth, our Gospel of Jn. 

Both of these items are significant of the advancing claims 6f Mt 
to paramount authority; but their bearing on the case requires further 
elucidation, especially as regards the Syriac synchronisms, which can 
only be brought into relation with our canonical Mt on the supposi- 
tion that the Syriac writer drew them from some record no longer 
extant; for as he employs them they apply only to the late legend he 
advances in support of his fifth-century contention that Mary re- 
mained a virgin to her death. 

In my Introduction to the New Testament (1900, p. 38) reference 
is made to this Syriac manuscript, published with translation in the 
Journal of Sacred Literature for Oct., 1866, by W. Wright, as well as 

50 



STEPS TOWARD CANONIZATION 51 

to the discussion of its significance by Hilgenfeld ("Das kanonische 
Matthaeusevangelium" in ZW Th for 1895, p. 449). My more recent 
article "Toward the Canonization of Matthew" in the HThR for 
April, 1929 (XXII, pp. 151-171), gives the results of more complete 
and careful studies. The nature and purpose of the manuscript are 
shown in its title: "As to the Star: showing how and by what means 
the Magi knew the Star, and that Joseph did not take Mary as his 
wife. " An extract from my Introduction will show the bearing on our 
present enquiry of a section forming its close. 

The visit of the Magi to Bethlehem (Mt 2:1-13) is declared to have been 
"In the [three hundred] and eleventh year (Seleucid era=l B.C.) in the 
second year of our Redeemer" (cf. Mt 2:16). The incident itself is declared 
to have been authenticated by a council assembled for the purpose in 
Rome "in the year 430 (= 119 A.D.), under the reign of Hadrianus Caesar, 
in the consulship of Severus and Fulgus, and the episcopate of Xystus 
(Sixtus I), bishop of the city of Rome." 

Other critics, including Nestle and Zahn (Introd. 54, p. 527), had 
not failed to call attention to the fact that dating by synchronisms 
with this degree of exactitude is quite beyond the unaided powers 
of a Syriac scribe of the fifth or sixth century, and that his datings 
at least must have been derived from some older source, perhaps one 
which recorded an actual council at Rome held at the date specified 
for the purpose of passing on the assertions of Mt 2, so novel to 
readers of the Roman Gospel of Mk. 

Zahn, in particular, is emphatic on this point: 

The exactness of the fourfold dating is surprising. If we change the 
first figure 430 to 431 (Oct. 1, 119-120 A.D.), all four dates agree, a great 
rarity in chronological notices of this sort. In the year 120, then, and 
primarily in Rome, as the manner of dating shows, the question in what 
year the Magi had come to Bethlehem was actively discussed. We are 
reminded of discussions like those concerning the census of Quirinius and 
of the fictitious Acts of Pilate (Justin, Apol. i. 34, 35). If there is anything 
in this remarkable statement, then in 120, in Rome and "in various places," 
men were occupied in a scholarly fashion with Mt ii., that is, of course, 
with the Greek text of this chapter of our Mt. 

We may add that the consistency of dates in the fragment extends 
over a fifth not counted by Zahn. For it begins with a reference to the 
nativity as occurring in the year (three hundred) "and eleven." 
The equivalent of this date of the Seleucid Era, used in Edessa at 
the period of our document, is 2 B.C. The datings are all taken con- 
sistently from the fifth-century Consularia Constantinopolitana, as 
can be easily proved by slight errors of text such as the spelling of 
the names of the consuls. The question still remains, however, from 



52 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

what source, or sources, a Syriac writer of the fifth century could 
have hit upon the device of a council of "great men in various places 
acquainted with the Holy Scriptures," assembled at Rome to pass 
upon the authenticity of a book, and recording their decision in 
writing "in their own language." Had the affirmation been framed 
originally in support of our author's own composition we should 
expect not only errors in the synchronisms, but reference to the 
language and authorities of his own country. 

Earlier scholars such as Nestle, Hilgenfeld, Zahn, and Harnack, 
have hesitated to treat this Syriac fragment as embodying the record 
of an actual council, a council de recipiendis libris, held at Rome in 
120 A.D. to pass upon the claims of our Gospel of Mt. But hesitation 
is abandoned and the plunge taken by Streeter in his recent volume 
(FG, 1925, p. 525). Speaking of the opinion of "Harnack and others" 
that the dating used by the Syriac writer is authentic Streeter adds: 

I hazard the conjecture that it is the date of a conference at which the 
Roman Church accepted the First Gospel as Apostolic on the testimony 
of representatives of the Church of Antioch. The martyrdom of Ignatius, 
Bishop of Antioch, in the Coliseum was then an event of recent memory. 
His letter to the Roman Church, which became, as Lightfoot shows, a 
kind of martyr's handbook, had attracted great attention; his enthusiastic 
admiration of the Roman Church, his emphasis on ecclesiastical discipline, 
based on obedience to the Bishop as a safeguard against heresy, would 
have specially commended the Church of Antioch and its traditions to the 
consideration of the authorities at Rome. Once a favourable hearing was 
secured for the tradition of Apostolic authorship, the Gospel on its merits 
would seem worthy of an Apostle. At any rate by the time of Justin 
Martyr, the Gospel of Mt, alongside that of Mk and Lk, is firmly estab- 
lished as one of the accepted Gospels of the Roman Church. 

Without further tracing back of the Syriac synchronisms to their 
actual source, or at least the indication of some line of transmission 
by which they might naturally reach a sixth-century writer in Edessa, 
the conjecture, however attractive, must indeed be classed as "haz- 
ardous. " Such a tracing back I have endeavored to give in the article 
referred to above under the title "As to the Canonization of Mat- 
thew. " The Syriac writer, as already stated, draws his dates from the 
Consularia Constantinopolitana, the latest date-book of his time. 
But the date-book was not his only source, much less the inspiration 
of his work. His impulse comes through Epiphanius, whose treatise on 
the Perpetual Virginity of Mary had been translated into Syriac not 
long before our document was composed. This appears from his 
title, curiously attaching an argument on the Perpetual Virginity to 
a seemingly unrelated discussion of the Magi and the Star. He also 
knows (as we should naturally infer from the false ascription of his 



STEPS TOWARD CANONIZATION 53 

material) the Church History of Eusebius, translated into Syriac be- 
fore 400 A.D., if not the Chronicon also. These writings would of course 
inform him, if not already informed, of the two great contemporary 
chronographers of the third century, Hippolytus of Rome and Afri- 
canus of Emmaus-Nicopolis in Palestine. Even if the writer were 
not directly acquainted with either of these (and such acquaintance 
is unlikely) the contents of his work show its general derivation. It 
consists of an attempt to trace the visit of the Magi to its Persian 
origin in a tradition transmitted from Balaam's prophecy of the 
Star through successive reigns synchronized with the Old Testament 
kings. Attached at the end is the proof (?) that Mary lived in her own 
house in Nazareth, apart from Joseph. Most of this supplemental 
demonstration has been purposely excised by some owner of the Ms., 
leaving only the appended synchronisms. The earlier portion, dealing 
solely with the question "How the Magi knew the Star," shows that 
its author relied upon some one of the numerous World-chronicles, 
or attempts to bring all the events of world history into adjustment 
with the Bible. These were based upon Hippolytus in the West, but 
more reliance was placed on Africanus in the East. The datings of 
our Syriac writer favor, as we should expect, Africanus rather than 
Hippolytus; but his dependence is probably indirect. Pseudo- Africa- 
nus, or that form of the World-chronicle which included an apocryphal 
story of the Magi as despatched by the king of Persia "the star show- 
ing them the way" is perhaps the middle link. 

Now Epiphanius, writing his long chapter on the Alogi and other 
deniers of Gospel agreement in Cyprus c. 375 A.D., begins his demon- 
stration of their exact harmony by a reconciliation of the apparent 
discrepancy between the early chapters of Mt and Lk, following the 
lines of Africanus' famous theory of the two genealogies of Joseph, 
the husband of Mary. He brings it to a close with a much more 
elaborate reconciliation of the fourth Gospel with the Synoptics 
along the lines of Hippolytus' no less famous defense of this Gospel 
against the Alogi, one of whose principal objections was the conflict 
between Jn and the Synoptics in point of chronology. Epiphanius 
therefore transcribes (with conjectural modifications of his own) the 
entire section of the Hippolytean consular lists covering the "thirty 
years" required by Lk 3:23 between Jesus' birth and baptism. Epi- 
phanius' corrections then come to be adopted in the Consularia Con- 
stantinopolitana, and so are passed on to our Edessene writer, to the 
Chronicon Paschale, and to others. 

But the World-chronicles founded on the chronographies of Afri- 
canus and Hippolytus did not lose sight of the harmonistic interests 
of their inspirers. The date of the Nativity was accompanied by a 
note referring to the visit of the Magi, and that of the consulship of 



54 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the two Gemini with similar reference to the crucifixion and ascension. 
Particularly the successions of the Persian kings from Balaam to the 
visit of the Magi offered a favorite method for the authentication of 
Mt. 

It would be difficult today to identify the particular World-chron- 
icle which links our Syriac writer to Africanus, whose datings he 
generally adopts. His lists of Persian kings, however, could undoubt- 
edly be carried back, if necessary, to some such third- or fourth-century 
thesaurus. 1 With his Roman material better headway can be made. 
He is certainly dependent on Epiphanius, and Epiphanius, as is well 
known, rests chiefly on Hippolytus, especially in this particular 
division of the Panarion. As respects Hippolytus' refutation of those 
who objected to the fourth Gospel because its chronology conflicted 
with the Synoptic we know something. Hippolytus' chief opponent 
was the "learned" Gaius, Bishop of Portus. This controversy took 
place in the period of Irenaeus, who makes clear reference to it, 
writing c. 186. The Muratorian Canon embodies the decisions of the 
Roman church on the books permitted and forbidden to be read from 
its pulpits. But had not Rome taken action similar to that implied 
in the Muratorianum when previously called upon to decide between 
similar conflicting claims? Its home-Gospel of Mk offered a very 
different "beginning" from that of the new-comer Mt, a gospel intro- 
duced not long before the coming of Ignatius, and certainly brought 
into great prominence by his use of it. For it is just the item of the 
Magi and the Star which chiefly interests Ignatius, and is at the same 
time that in which Mt stands most conspicuously out of line with Mk. 
If a "conference" was held at Rome in 120 A.D. to settle this question, 
is it likely that the memory of its date and its decisions survived 
until the time of Hippolytus, so that reference could be made to it 
in his Chronology, and thus pass on into the World-chronicles on 
which our Syriac writer depends? Two things are favorable to the 
idea that such was actually the case. 

(1) We have already noted that the interest of Hippolytus in 
chronography is apologetic. He aims at harmonization of the Gospels. 
Africanus and the (3 text of the Genealogy in Lk give abundant proof 
that the discrepancy between Mt and Lk had by no means been over- 
looked in the second century. Porphyry is one of those who threw 
scorn upon it. Epiphanius does well to start his chronological defense 
with this. Probably those from whom he so freely draws, Hippolytus 
included, had not been silent on the subject. 

(2) Councils de recipiendis libris were no new thing at Rome in 

1 See Bratke (TU, N. F. IV, 3, pp. 130 and 172) on Jewish and Christian Apoc- 
rypha connecting Persian and Magian astrology with the star of Balaam. Cf. 
also Origen, Ctr. Gels. I, 60. 



STEPS TOWARD CANONIZATION 55 

Hippolytus' time and before it. They were really pre-Christian in 
origin, as already observed (above, p. 42, note). Our most conspic- 
uous Christian example is the Muratorian Canon, which, as Harnack 
has recently pointed out, represents not the opinion of any single 
individual (the author speaks of what "we" and "the Church 
catholic" receive), but the decision of some representative and 
authoritative body. But even the Muratorianum is not all. Tertul- 
lian has further implications. True, he may be using some of his not 
unaccustomed hyperbolic diction; he may be referring to councils 
held after that which gives us the Muratorianum; but his language 
in protesting against the public reading of The Shepherd of Hennas 
implies more than the condemnation imposed on the book by the 
Muratorianum. Tertullian writes in the De Pudicitia, addressing the 
Bishop of Rome, "By every assembly of your churches" this writing 
has been rejected. Moreover he is speaking not of general councils, but 
provincial, Italian "conferences," in which the African churches had 
not joined. To how much earlier a date than the first protests against 
the public reading of Hermas (154 A.D. ?) this practice of holding local 
councils de recipiendis libris can be carried back in the Roman church 
we can only conjecture. Still there is nothing improbable in the sup- 
position advanced by Streeter that such a "conference" took place 
not long after the coming of Ignatius; nor is it insupposable that 
Hippolytus or Africanus, impelled by their apologetic and harmo- 
nistic interest, may have somewhere preserved the memory and date 
of the favorable decision. What the Muratorianum itself had to say 
regarding the canonicity of its "first" Gospel is unfortunately missing. 

Further support for the belief that such a local council was actually 
held at Rome in 120 A.D. may be found in what we know to have taken 
place in Phrygia not more than a generation later. We have already 
seen that Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in 140 A.D., makes our Gospel 
of Mt his principal authority, accepting without question, and in 
the strictest sense, the title which ascribed it to the Apostle Matthew. 
On the other hand Papias is certainly acquainted with First Jn and 
almost certainly with the fourth Gospel, though he gives no sign of 
ascribing to either of these any apostolic authority. Only the Revela- 
tion, which explicitly and boldly claims the name of the Apostle 
(Rev. 1:9-11) is ardently defended in this claim by Papias as well as 
by all the later succession of Chiliasts who take their cue from him. 2 
If Papias had given to the fourth Gospel even such indirect and sec- 
ondary authority as he claims for the second Gospel because of its 
author's relation to Peter, his testimony in its behalf would certainly 
have been quoted on one side or the other of the controversy which 
raged a generation later over the admissibility of the Johannine 

2 See Appended Note III. 



56 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

canon; for western conservatives objected that the fourth Gospel 
conflicted with the accepted three, whereas the "Phrygians" de- 
fended it. A leading feature of the dispute was the conflict in chronol- 
ogy, particularly where ritual practice was involved, as in the differ- 
ing date for the observance of Easter. 

In this celebrated "Paschal controversy" the "Phrygians" must of 
course have had some standard method of harmonizing the Johannine 
date with the Synoptic, or Matthean; for in 150-180 Mt, rather than 
Mk or Lk, was naturally appealed to by both sides as of "apostolic" 
authority. Exactly how the feat of harmonization was accomplished 
we are not told, though it was probably along the same lines fol- 
lowed by Clement of Alexandria in his contribution to the contro- 
versy, viz., the theory that the Passover supper of Mt. 26:17 ff. was 
eaten by Jesus and the twelve a day earlier than the official date. 
However, our interest in the subject is not with Clement, early in 
the third century, but with Claudius Apollinaris, the successor of 
Papias at Hierapolis about 160. For the beginning of the contro- 
versy was earlier still, our first information coming through the mis- 
sion of the aged Polycarp to Rome c. 150, when he was permitted 
by the Roman bishop Anicetus to celebrate the annual feast after his 
own fashion, Roman observance notwithstanding. This exercise of 
Christian toleration unfortunately did not prevent a fresh outbreak 
in Laodicea, three miles across the river Meander from Hierapolis, 
shortly after the death of Papias. To this second outbreak Claudius 
Apollinaris makes his contribution in a fragment preserved in the 
Paschal Chronicle side by side with that from Clement, showing 
incidentally how the acceptance of "Matthew" as authoritative had 
produced a clash in the diocese over the question of the proper date 
for observance of Easter. Apollinaris wrote as follows: 

Some there are, however, who because of ignorance raise dispute about 
these things, being afflicted after a well known manner; for ignorance 
does not merit denunciation but calls for instruction. Now these men say 
that the Lord ate the lamb with his disciples on the fourteenth (Nisan), 
but that on the great day of Unleavened Bread he himself suffered; and 
they declare that Matthew affirms the matter to be in accordance with 
their opinion; so that their doctrine is contrary to the Law (Ex. 12:17 ff.) 
and brings the Gospels into apparent conflict. 

In Asia Minor the mode of observance of Easter had been from 
"the times of the Apostles" Quartodeciman, that is, in accordance 
with the fourth Gospel. Polycarp, as we have seen, bore witness to 
this in a journey to Rome at the age of eighty or more. Consequently 
those anti-quartodeciman members of his diocese whom Apollinaris 
treats so contemptuously for their alleged "ignorance," are the in- 



STEPS TOWARD CANONIZATION 57 

novators. They maintain that "Matthew," the Gospel which Apol- 
linaris' predecessor Papias had given such unique authority, demands 
the Roman and not the Phrygian, or Asiatic, mode of observance. 
A little "instruction," their Bishop declares, would have shown them 
two things: first that the Mosaic law really requires observance on 
the fourteenth, as the Jews maintain, not the fifteenth; second that 
conflict between the holy Gospels is unthinkable. 

The point which interests us is not what particular mode of mis- 
interpretation the Bishop applied to Mt to make it agree with Jn, but 
the implication of the controversy itself. For if the supporters of 
"Matthew," are the innovators (and these, we know, do not misin- 
terpret Mt, but take it in its real and unperverted sense), and if the 
harmonizing misinterpretation of the Bishop had to be invented in 
order to accommodate the more recently received Gospel of Mt to 
Phrygian festal observance, then the arrival of the Gospel of Mt in 
Phrygia must have been comparatively recent in Papias' day, for 
the indigenous tradition was certainly Johannine. Papias would 
hardly have ventured to change the mode of observance practiced 
throughout Proconsular Asia "since the times of the Apostles." 
Hence in adopting Mt he was surely unconscious of the conflict, a con- 
dition which in the nature of the case could not long endure. For 
when Polycarp went to Rome, probably for the very purpose of bear- 
ing his testimony in the controversy, the discrepancy could not re- 
main hid. The dispute once raised say in 150 A.D. the bishops 
responsible for the adoption of Mt would naturally find at once a 
method of harmonization. But naturally also not all the flock could 
be immediately "instructed." Those who accepted Mt but still re- 
mained "ignorant" were for disregarding the Johannine chronology 
and coming to agreement with Rome. If "quarrelsome" they re- 
mained unconvinced by their bishop's explanation of the "apparent 
conflict. " Of course the generality of believers in Phrygia continued 
their Quartodeciman observance as before. Two centuries were to 
elapse before agreement was reached between East and West. 

The fact that the Gospel of Mt, distinctly mentioned as "Mat- 
thew's" by both Papias and Apollinaris, is thus involved in the earlier 
stages of the long Easter controversy enables us to determine some- 
thing regarding its spread. Incidentally we observe how impossible 
it would be for this unquestionably Syrian Gospel to take a place at 
Rome alongside of the indigenous Gospel of Mk and the Antiochian (?) 
Gospel of Lk without some action of church officials corresponding 
to that implied in the Paschal Treatise of Apollinaris. At Rome there 
would be no conflict on the score of Easter observance, because Mt 
follows Markan, that is, Roman, observance. But there would be 
inevitable conflict at Rome as regards the adoptionist beginning of 



58 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Mk. The story of the Star and the Magi involves an Epiphany at 
birth difficult to reconcile with the Epiphany by vision and voice from 
heaven at the Baptism of John. Cerinthus may not have brought 
his protest to bear until a later time, but there were adoptionists at 
Rome before Cerinthus, loud in then: protests against any other 
"beginning" than the old-time tradition which made the "beginning 
of the gospel" coincide with "the baptism of John. " Streeter is there- 
fore likely to be correct in postulating the necessity of some kind of 
official action at Rome early in the second century to enable Mt to 
circulate there on a parity with Mk. 

We may distinguish accordingly three stages, not two only, in the 
history of the origin and dissemination of our first canonical Gospel. 
Its origin was certainly in (northern?) Syria, probably in some bilin- 
gual region northward of Damascus and eastward of Antioch, where 
Nazarene traditions were current. From thence it spread southward 
(in Aramaic targum) down the Euphrates toward India and (in the 
original Greek) westward toward Antioch, where Ignatius accepts it, 
most likely along with a claim that it was (perhaps in some broad 
sense) "according to" Matthew. The third stage of the Gospel's 
advance toward canonization is a consequence of Ignatius' journey, 
and of the immense effect of his martyrdom at Rome about 115. 
His epistles, collected by Polycarp not later than 115, and almost 
canonized from the start, make prominent use of the Matthean 
Epiphany story of Magi and Star. Rome, not Antioch, nor Ephesus, 
after due deliberation and consultation, put the final stamp of its 
unparalleled authority upon the book as authentic and apostolic. 
Under this aegis its further triumph was assured. 

But the beginnings of the process were earlier. In 140 we already 
find Papias and in 167 his successor Apollinaris in Phrygia using Mt 
with the same assurance as Ignatius, and even surpassing Ignatius 
in their strict interpretation of the "according to" of the title. This 
is unlikely to have been out of mere deference to the verdict of Rome 
in 120. The visit of Ignatius to Phrygia in 115 had borne fruit here 
also, and even earlier than in Rome. Lay difficulties were encountered 
still where Quartodeciman observance entailed the necessity of ad- 
justment to the chronology of Jn. Controversy continued for at 
least a half-century. But Rome and the bishops together could not 
but prevail, even in Asia. Shortly after 167 the same objections are 
echoed by opponents of the fourth Gospel in the famous resistance of 
Caius at Rome. But here the situation is reversed. It is Mt which 
now stands secure in every quarter, whereas "Phrygian" supporters 
of the fourth Gospel must find some harmonistic interpretation or 
see the writings of their (Johannine) canon rejected. In the Mura- 
torianum, and all later canons based upon Roman usage, Mt is the 



STEPS TOWARD CANONIZATION 59 

foundation of everything, a long defense of "John" proves that 
"although varying ideas may be taught in the several books of the 
evangelists, there is no difference in that which pertains to the faith 
of believers," in particular as regards "the nativity" and "the 
passion" of Jesus. The popular verdict endorses this harmonistic 
interpretation down to our own day, without understanding why the 
Nativity and the Passion should be the special points of dispute. 

We have now followed up to its remotest possibility of serviceable 
content the ancient tradition as to Mt. Its "single root" can be 
traced back of Papias solely in the title "According to Matthew," 
which Papias takes in the strict sense, but which, as Plummer points 
out, "need not mean more than 'drawn up according to the teaching 
of.' " Our study of its spread suggests the following event as the 
probable source of the remarkable re-enforcement given to its "back- 
ing" a score of years before Papias wrote. A Roman provincial 
council was held under Sixtus I about 120 A.D., whose verdict en- 
dorsed the title "According to Matthew": on what grounds, or in 
what sense, can only be conjectured. It is "conceivable," Zahn to 
the contrary notwithstanding, that the apostolic name was originally 
applied at Antioch because of the curious difference in Mt 9:9 from 
Mk 2:14. More probably the step was first taken in Ev. Hebr. In 
either case, the conjecture has no value whatever. It is certain that 
the name "Matthew" is wrongly attached to the Gospel. Just when 
and where the title was first prefixed is uncertain, but at all events 
this was at some other than its place of origin. The name was prefixed 
in order to distinguish it from other gospels circulating in the same 
region concurrently with it. 

Nothing whatever can be made of the epithet "the publican." 
It does not properly apply to Matthew, but to Levi the son of Al- 
phaeus; and Levi and Matthew cannot be the same person. The title 
was not transferred from the Second Source, which is not an apostolic 
writing and was never treated as such by any writer to whom we can 
look as having made use of it. It is not likely to have been trans- 
ferred from those peculiarly "Matthean" traditions of late origin 
and apocryphal character from which Mt derives his element N. 
They would contribute little to the apostle's reputation, and can only 
have "grown up outside the range of the control which apostles or 
other eye-witnesses would have exercised." Transfer from the Ev. 
Hebr. is easily conceivable, but the claim of Ev. Hebr. is itself mere 
conjecture based on Mt 9:9 which adopts a false reading of Mk 2:14. 
For real information concerning the background and origin of Mt we 
are thrown back upon the internal evidence. 



B. INTERNAL EVIDENCE 



CHAPTER V 
(1) INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 

HISTORICAL interpretation of any ancient writing demands as chief 
prerequisite all available information concerning date and place of 
origin. Our scrutiny of the tradition regarding Mt has resulted in a 
fairly definite and almost unanimous verdict as to the general region 
of its provenance, and an approximate agreement as to the terminus 
ad quern of its date. It is certainly Syrian, probably North Syrian, 
in origin, and earlier than Ignatius. The terminus a quo of its date 
must be determined as in every other case of disputed antiquity from 
the internal evidence; that is, the knowledge displayed by the evan- 
gelist of writings or events whose date is better known. 

Modern criticism with practical unanimity reverses the belief of 
antiquity concerning the relation of Mt to Mk. The dependence is 
not on the side of Mk, as imagined by Augustine and probably by 
Augustine's predecessors so far as they observed the literary connec- 
tion, but on the side of Mt. As respects the extent and mode of this 
employment more will appear presently. The fact is indisputable and 
of course determines the relative date. What, then, is the date of Mk? 

The ancients, beginning with Irenaeus (186), place the composition 
of Mk "after the death of Peter and Paul." This seems to be an in- 
ference from the testimony of "the Elder" quoted by Papias to the 
effect that Mark was unable to supply the order of an eyewitness. 
The inference is probably correct. Had the apostles, particularly 
Peter, been accessible to our second evangelist, his failure to secure 
a better order would be inexplicable. As respects chronological se- 
quence Mk's order is the best that survives and was so treated even 
in antiquity, but critical enquiry makes clearer and clearer the truth 
of the ancient judgment, that Mk has not given a biography, but a 
mere grouping of stories of Jesus' sayings and doings taken down from 
the preacher's occasional utterance. 

How long after the death of Peter and Paul Mark wrote Irenaeus 
does not attempt to say. Irenaeus makes no reference at all in this 
connection to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., though many moderns 
make this groundless assumption. He probably dates the death of 
Peter and Paul in the last year of Nero (67-68), after a common 
practice of the Fathers. 1 In making the composition of Mk later than 

1 The dispersion of the Twelve was dated "twelve years" after the Ascension, 
i.e., 42 A.D. Peter's stay in Rome was extended over twenty-five years, i.e., 42-67. 

63 



64 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

this Irenaeus doubtless reflects the real meaning of Papias, though 
later writers (Clement, Jerome), anxious to avoid a post-apostolic 
origin for the Gospel, find various expedients to account for Mk's 
neglect in the matter of "order." 

Within the last few decades some eminent modern scholars have 
based on particular passages in Mk arguments in favor of a much 
earlier dating. But at most these inferences from internal evidence 
could establish no more than an earlier date for the individual pas- 
sages concerned. The ancient dating of the Gospel, placing it after the 
close of the apostolic age as defined by Clement (the age of apostolic 
teaching, including specifically that of "Peter" and Paul, "ends with 
Nero " Strom. VII, xvii.) , would still stand for the work as a whole. My 
own enquiry 2 substantiates the ancient view, dating the work in =^80 
A.D. The Gospels of Mt and Lk would then have appeared about a 
decade later, sufficiently near to one another in date to account for 
their mutual independence, and long enough after the Roman Gospel 
to account for its wide dissemination and apparently high valuation. 
But since the date c. 80 for Mk is disputed, corroboration of the pro- 
visional date 90-100 for Mt must be sought in the Gospel itself to 
disprove recent attempts to carry back the entire Synoptic literature 
to a date before the overthrow of Jerusalem, and even into the midst 
of the missionary activities of Peter and Paul. 

A brief synopsis of the evidence given by McNeile (p. xxvii.) for 
the date of Mt individually will serve as a starting point for our 
enquiry. After adopting the quotations of Ignatius as fixing a terminus 
ad quern in 115 as the best the external evidence can afford McNeile 
turns to the internal evidence for light on the terminus a quo: 

Internal evidence is hardly more helpful; 22:7 clearly presupposes the 
fall of Jerusalem. The expressions os apn (11:12), ecus T^S (n/jpepov (27: 
8), i*'*xP i 7 S <"7/*epov TjfjLepws (28:15) suggest no more than some lapse of 
time since the days of Jesus. But a few indications point to a compara- 
tively late date. Church government is alluded to (16:19; 18:18), and 
excommunication (18:17). The apostles, as the foundation of the Church, 
are so highly reverenced that their faults are often minimized or con- 
cealed. . . . False Christian prophets had appeared (7:15, 22); cf. Did. 
xi-xiii. Additions which are certainly apocryphal had begun to be made. 
And the writer, though he had not abandoned the expectation, still found 
in the 2d century, that the Parousia of Christ was near, and freely re- 
corded the Lord's predictions to that effect, was yet able to look forward 
to a period during which the evangelization of "all nations" (sc. of the 
known world) would be carried on (28:19 f.). These facts, which are in 
keeping with the impression produced by the Gospel as a whole, forbid 
a date earlier than c. A.D. 80, but do not require one later than 100. 

2 GM, 1925. 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 65 

This statement of the case for a date between 80 and 100 could 
hardly be improved upon for clarity, but its confident tone calls for 
some justification, if not corroboration also. 

Without the Lukan parallel Mt's parable of the Slighted Invitation 
(Mt. 22:1-14) scarcely reveals why McNeile relies upon it with such 
confidence. The parable forms part of the Q material. 3 The versions 
of Mt and Lk placed side by side enable us to restore the original 
S when due account is taken of the style distinctive of Mt and Lk 
respectively. The exact nature of the Matthean changes (printed 
in italic), will then be apparent. Some of these merely exhibit this 
evangelist's habitual alterations of style and phraseology; others, 
including his two additions of verses 6 f. and 11-14, affect the sub- 
stance of the parable. Of these two the latter (verses 11-14) belongs 
to a type of Matthean supplements discussed elsewhere and may be 
postponed. The former (verses 6 f .) proves its editorial character in 
part by incongruous traits of allegory (guests invited to a banquet do 
not in real life abuse and kill the bearers of the invitation, nor does 
the "king" who sends the invitation retaliate by sending "armies" 
to kill the murderers and "burn their city"). It appears mainly in 
the fact that the Lukan transcript of S shows not a trace of this 
section, though Lk too has not hesitated to make additions of his own. 
For Lk also supplements in verses 21b-23a by prefixing to the final 
sending of the "servant" (singular) a previous sending, carried out 
after the pattern laid down in the preceding saying (verse 13). The 
editorial changes in Mt will be best seen if we place the two reports 
in parallel columns, giving Lk, as the more nearly authentic, the 
position on the left. Editorial supplements are enclosed between . 

Lk 14:16-24 Mt 22:1-10 

But he said to him A certain man And Jesus answered and spake to 

made a great supper and invited them again in parables, saying, The 

many. And he sent his servant at the kingdom of heaven is likened unto 

hour set for the supper to say to the a certain king who made a marriage 

invited guests, Come, for all things supper for his son. And he sent forth 

are now ready. And they all with his servants to invite the guests to 

one consent began to make excuse, the wedding, and they would not 

The first said to him, I have bought come. Again he sent other servants, 

a field and must needs go forth and saying, Tell the guests, Lo, I have 

view it. I pray thee, hold me ex- prepared my banquet; my oxen and 

cused. And another said, I have my failings are slaughtered and all 

bought five yoke of oxen, and I am things are ready; come to the wed- 

going out to test them; I pray thee, ding. But they paid no heed and 

hold me excused. And another said, went away, one to his field, another 

3 Harnack, Beitr. II throws some doubt on this classification, but see below, 
p. 94. 



66 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

I have married a wife, and on this to his merchandize. And the rest 
account I cannot come. And the laid hold on his servants and mal- 
servant came and reported these treated and killed them. But the 
things to his master. Then the house- king was angry and sent his armies 
holder was angry and said to his and destroyed those murderers and 
servant, Go forth quickly into the burned their city. Then he saith to 
streets and lanes of the city, and his servants, The wedding is ready, 
bring in hither the poor and maimed but the invited guests were not 
and blind and lame. And the servant worthy. Go forth, then, to the part- 
said, Master, what thou badest is ings of the roads and invite all that 
done, and there is still room. And ye find to the wedding. So those 
the master said to his servant, Go servants went forth into the high- 
forth into the highways and hedges ways and gathered all that they 
and constrain them to come in, that found, both bad and good, and the 
my house may be filled. For I say wedding was supplied with guests, 
unto you that not one of those men 
that were invited shall taste of my 
supper. 

Mt has obviously quite rewritten the parable, giving it the form of 
allegory and using as model that of Mk 12:1-9. We are not here 
concerned with details of style, such as the change from "house- 
holder" to "king," "banquet" to "marriage supper for his son," 
or the curious insertion of the clause "both bad and good" after the 
model of 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50, in preparation for the supplement 
in verses 11-14. We note only as part of this process of allegorization 
the insertion of verses 6 f., depicting the fate of Jerusalem as the 
city which had rejected the messengers of God. Even so close a paral- 
lel as this to the actual fate of the guilty city might not be wholly 
unexampled in the warnings of prophets concerning the doom of the 
disobedient. But we are not now concerned with Jesus' original warn- 
ing. It is the re-writing of a parable of Jesus to adapt it to the event 
which makes the interpolated verses seem, in the judgment of critics 
as conservative as McNeile, to " clearly presuppose the fall of Jeru- 
salem." Face to face with the supplements we cannot but concur 
with this judgment of the relation of Mt to S. 

A date later than 70 A.D. being thus established for Mt, all argu- 
ments based on archaic forms or interests in particular passages fall 
to the ground. For the date of a book is not that of its embodied 
material, much of which may be derived from earlier writings, with 
more or less editorial revision according as the special proclivities 
of the excerptor are, or are not, involved. The date of a book is the date 
of the latest thing inserted in it byjhe_author. And no textual or higher 
critic will venture to assert that the supplementary verses inserted in 
the Matthean form of the parable of the Slighted Invitation are not 
the work of the evangelist himself. The question of date, therefore, 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 67 

ceases to be "Before or after the fall of Jerusalem?", and takes now 
the form "How much later" than 70 A.D.? 

The considerations above cited, which induce McNeile in common 
with the majority of critics to place the composition at "a compara- 
tively late date" are all germane and cogent; particularly so if on 
independent grounds one have reached the conclusion that Mk, Mt's 
principal source, cannot be earlier than c. 80. Nevertheless the ex- 
treme brevity of mention in McNeile's discussion makes it advis- 
able to offer some further comment, particularly with reference to 
the Matthean eschatology, principally set forth in the Doom of 
Jerusalem (24:1-51) and admittedly based for the most part on Mk. 
The so-called Little Apocalypse of Mk is still our best reliance for 
the dating of that Gospel, because from the very method adopted 
by the apocalyptic writers the transition from vaticinia ex eventu, 
with which they commonly begin, to real prediction, with which they 
close, is relatively easy to trace. 

In the case of Mk we had occasion to observe 4 that the incorpora- 
tion (for substance) of an apocalypse of 40 A.D., independently at- 
tested by Paul in I Thess. 4:15 and elsewhere, has no bearing on the 
date of Mk apart from such modifications as the evangelist himself 
can be shown to have introduced to adapt it to his own times. In 
Chapter IX of the volume cited, entitled "The Markan Doom- 
chapter in Matthean Adaptation" it was shown that the apocalypse 
of the year 40 employed (with modifications) by Paul in 50 had under- 
gone further modification in Mk 13 to adapt it to conditions after the 
fall of Jerusalem. It was also shown that in Mt 24 the same Doom- 
chapter had been still further modified and supplemented from 
SQ partly to bring it into more exact agreement with "Daniel the 
prophet," but also to enhance its predictions of a second Coming 
but shortly delayed; for such is the constant tendency of all the 
Matthean transcriptions of Markan eschatology. As this tendency 
is imperfectly understood, so that critics still occasionally argue for 
the priority of Mt's material over Mk's in such passages as Mt. 
24:29=Mk. 13:24, where Mt predicts the Parousia "immediately" 
after the Great Tribulation, while Mk only predicts it as "thereafter, " 
it will be well briefly to restate the conclusions of my former argument. 

All characterizations of Mt by recent critics point to his tendency 
to enhance passages of Mk predicting the Second Coming of the 
Christ to judgment. Mk reflects on the contrary the Pauline teaching 
of the Thessalonian Epistles directed to the holding in check of an ex- 
cessive and perhaps fanatical millenarianism. Mt aims to rekindle 
the hope of the Parousia, and makes his constantly repeated warn- 
ings of coming judgment one of the main incentives of his Gospel 

4 GM, pp. 53-120. 



68 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

to the "good works" which in it are to be the ground of justification. 
The passage of the Doom-chapter to which we have just referred is 
one of the conspicuous instances of this enhancement, and (as above 
noted) because of failure to understand the evangelist's point of 
view is still sometimes quoted as proof that in this instance at least 
Mt must be reproducing the source in earlier and more authentic 
form. Indeed there are not a few who discover in the word "immedi- 
ately" a proof that the evangelist was writing very soon after, or 
even before, the fall of Jerusalem. Apart, then, from the general 
tendency let us consider the specific instance. 

If the Great Tribulation, "immediately" after which the second 
Coming should occur, still meant primarily to Mt, as perhaps it did 
to Mk, the Jewish war, which culminated in that catastrophe, the 
argument from it for an early dating of Mt might have cogency. 
But to take this view of the context, especially of the immediately 
preceding paragraph, one must wear the spectacles of Josephus, or 
those of some modern historian to whom this particular event in a 
long series of Jewish catastrophes stands out with much greater 
prominence than to contemporaries. It is better to see with the eyes 
of the evangelist himself. 

As will be shown presently in greater detail the paragraph which 
precedes the prediction of the End in Mt 24:29-31 is epexegetical. 
The ovv resumptive which Mt interjects at its beginning is intended 
to indicate this relation to the preceding paragraph ending "And then 
shall the End come" (24:9-14). Consequently we are not intended by 
Mt to understand that there will be two periods of exposure of the 
Church to the sufferings and temptations described in verses 9-14 
(a substitute, largely of the evangelist's own composition, for the 
Markan equivalent which he had previously utilized in 10:17-21), 
but the "tribulation" here described is the same set forth in greater 
detail in 15-28, even the particular word "tribulation" (OXfyts) be- 
ing borrowed from the Markan context in the latter passage (24:21 
= Mk 13:19) as if to mark the identity. This "Great Tribulation," 
accordingly, which in Mk begins with the Profanation and Jewish 
war (Mt 24:15-22=Mk 13:14-20), and ends with the Great Apostasy 
(Mt 24:23-25=Mk 13:21-23), a tribulation which Mt further en- 
larges upon by adding from S q verses 26-28 (=Lk 17:23 f., 37), is 
understood by Mt to include both the persecution of the Church and 
the apostasy caused by the "teachers of lawlessness" described in verses 
9 and 10-14- When, therefore, we read his encouraging assurance in 
verse 29 of a Redemption to come "immediately after the tribulation 
of those days" we should realize that Mt is not speaking primarily, 
as Mk perhaps does, of the "tribulation" of "those in Judea. " He 
is speaking inclusively. He refers to the "tribulation" of the Church, 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 69 

a tribulation in which the sufferings endured during the Jewish war 
are only a part, perhaps not the greatest. Moreover of this broader 
period of "tribulation" the TrXavrj, or great Apostasy, is the culmi- 
nating phase. In other words Mt makes no prediction that the 
Second Coming will follow "immediately" after the fall of Jerusalem. 
He predicts (what is much more to the purpose for his readers) that 
it will come immediately after the worst sufferings of the Church. 
Indeed, he shows by his additions (verses 10 f ., 14, and 26-28) before 
and after Mk 13 :14-23, that to his mind these sufferings do not cul- 
minate in the period of the Jewish war, but at an indefinite time after 
it, during which time all the experiences take place which are de- 
scribed in verses 9-14, some of them again in greater detail in 15-28. 
These experiences include not only the persecution and hatred of 
the Christians by "all the Gentiles" (verse 9) but extend to a wider 
horizon than Mk's and a considerably later date. There must be, says 
Mt, the Falling away of Many, because of the coming of False Proph- 
ets and the Error of Lawlessness (11-13). There must also be the 
Preaching of "this gospel of the kingdom in the entire inhabited 
world for a testimony to the Gentiles" (verse 14). 

Read thus, with some attention to the context, this altered Mat- 
thean form of the Markan Doom-chapter can hardly be said to ad- 
vance the time of the Parousia, though it unquestionably does change 
the emphasis. In Mk we have repression of apocalyptic hopes, in 
Mt encouragement and reassurance. In reality the shifting of sym- 
pathy from "those in Judea," as victims of the Great Tribulation, 
to the world-wide Church as the real victim, carries us forward in 
time, not backward. Thus Mt's modification of the Markan Doom- 
chapter, rightly interpreted, only corroborates the long list of other 
indications of a "comparatively late date." 5 

The relation of Mt to Lk also has a bearing on the question of date, 
though the relation is much more difficult to appraise. Here too the 
drag of fifteen centuries of wrong judgment has had its effect, though 
less harmfully than in delaying our apprehension of the true rela- 
tion to Mk. The burden of proof has been thrown upon those who de- 
nied the tradition of Lk's dependence on Mt, with the result of mak- 
ing a genuinely critical judgment a much slower acquisition, though 
in the end more sure. 

The first step, whose grounds we need not restate from the careful 
studies already cited, 6 was the demonstration, now generally ad- 
mitted, that there is no direct literary relation between Mt and Lk. 
Such minor resemblances as appear, apart from the common use of 
the two principal sources S and Mk, are indirect; that is, they also 

5 See Appended Note IV. The Little Apocalypse of Mk and Mt. 
8 Above, p. 33. 



70 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

are due either to (1) textual assimilations by transcribers who tend 
normally to make Lk agree with Mt, or (2) accidental coincidence 
between Mt and Lk in improving the style of their sources, or (3) 
remote effects of parallel traditions, in most cases merely oral, cir- 
culating in the vicinity at the date of composition. The influences 
last-named of course affect substance rather than the minutiae of 
form. 

The second step of emancipation from the drag of erroneous tra- 
dition followed naturally upon the recognition of this mutual inde- 
pendence of Mt and Lk. As already noted, Stanton, Streeter, and 
others make the reasonable inference that the date of the two Gospels 
cannot be far apart. Had either evangelist known of the other's 
work it is improbable that he would not have availed himself of it. 
This argument is especially applicable to Lk, whose preface (Lk 1 :l-4) 
shows that he did not write without careful enquiry into the work 
of predecessors; but it is measurably applicable to Mt also. Of 
course this inference from the mutual independence of Mt and Lk 
becomes more cogent in proportion as we trace the origin of the two 
to regions geographically in closer proximity. As we have seen, tra- 
dition, dissemination, and internal evidence favor the origin of both 
Gospels in northern Syria, Lk embodying the traditions of Antioch, 
Caesarea, and Jerusalem, Mt those of Antioch (including Mk and S) 
but in a form, and with additions, indicative of a more easterly en- 
vironment than that from which we derive our fragments of Ev. Naz. 
We may be fairly certain that Lk did not know of the existence of 
Mt when he wrote, and almost as certain that Mt had no direct 
knowledge of the existence of Lk. 

Another step away from the ancient tradition is taken by a small, 
but increasingly important group of scholars who argue from even 
the indirect relation of Mt and Lk, and on other grounds, that Mt is 
the later of the two. Of these scholars one of the earliest was Pfleiderer, 
who in the second edition of his Urchristenthum (Vol. I, pp. 601-614) 
pointed to the often noted "contradictory" character of the elements 
of Mt as significant of its late nature as a sort of primitive "gospel 
harmony," the relatively late character of its "ecclesiastical" rules, 
such as the "Trinitarian" baptismal formula (Mt 28:19) as com- 
pared with the Lukan (Acts 2:38 and passim), and the apocryphal 
character of its N element. These proved, in Pfleiderer's judgment, 
a later origin for Mt than Lk. He dated Mt "within the first half 
of the second century." 

For von Soden also (History of Early Christian Literature, Engl. 
1906, pp. 181-200) Mt "marks the close of the primitive Christian 
development of gospel literature. " Von Soden renews the argument 
of Pfleiderer for Mt's relatively later date from the diverse character 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 71 

of the ingredients of Mt, and from its ecclesiastical, "catechetic" 
nature: 

Paul's spirit is alien to it, though his language may be employed here 
and there. It points onward to the development towards Catholicism; 
hence it became the chief gospel, the work which took the lead in guiding 
this development, and in so far no book ever written is of greater historical 
importance. We Protestant Christians of today ought however to recog- 
nize that we can gain from St. Mk and St. Lk a surer knowledge of the 
essential nature of the gospel message than from this Roman (sic) gospel 
of the third generation. 

The most recent addition to the group of scholars who argue from 
the indirect relation of Mt to Lk a date sufficiently later to allow of 
some tincture of oral influence is von Dobschiitz, whose article 
"Matthaus als Rabbiner und Katechet" in the ZNW for 1928 has 
already been referred to. 7 

Von Dobschiitz is no less convinced than Pfleiderer that the pref- 
ace of Lk "completely excludes" the possibility of acquaintance 
with Mt. He also agrees that direct acquaintance of Mt with Lk is 
improbable, but finds it difficult to account for the prefixing to 
Mk's narrative of a genealogy (however inconsistent with Lk's) and 
a story of miraculous birth apart from indirect suggestion from Lk. 
That is, he holds that the new doctrinal features affecting the Markan 
outline would not have found acceptance in the circles whence Mt 
comes had not Lk paved the way. In addition von Dobschutz con- 
siders that we have the possibility of direct dependence by Mt on 
one of the earliest and greatest leaders in the reorganization of Juda- 
ism after the catastrophe of 70 A.D. Mt, the "converted rabbi," 
might well (thinks von Dobschtitz) have been a "disciple" of the 
famous Johanan ben Zacchai (10-80 A.D.), one of the original founders 
of the rabbinic school of "teachers" (Tannaim) at Jamnia. 

Johanan, a reputed disciple of Hillel, took refuge along with his 
disciples in the camp of Vespasian at the siege of Jerusalem, and was 
distinguished not merely for his part in refounding the legalistic 
Judaism of the Synagogue but for his leaning toward eschatology 
of the apocalyptic type. A scripture passage twice introduced by 
Mt in support of the action of Jesus (Mt 9:13 and 12:7) was a fa- 
vorite with Johanan ben Zacchai to comfort his fellow-Jews for the 
cessation of the temple services. Cited according to the typical 
rabbinic formula from Hos. 6:6 the word would be "Go learn what 
that meaneth: I will have mercy and not sacrifice" (c/. Mt 9:13 and 
12:7). 

A single coincidence of this kind would not go far to support the 

7 Above, p. 47. 



72 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

theory of dependence, however just the characterization of Mt as 
a "converted rabbi," and however congenial the special tendencies 
of Synagogue leader and Church catechist. But it may be possible 
to add a further parallel of greater weight. 

We have seen above that Mt rewrites the SQ parable of the Slighted 
Invitation, introducing in verses 6 f . an allegorizing reference to the 
fate of Jerusalem. He also appends in verses 11-14 a supplement 
in the interest of his favorite moral of good works (for the "garment 
of good works" cf. Rev. 19:8), our indispensable safeguard against 
judgment to come. Our transcription italicizes the Matthean phrases. 

But when the King came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man 
which had not on a wedding garment: and he saith unto him, Friend, how 
earnest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speech- 
less. Then the King said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and 
cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the 
gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few chosen. 

Some critics are disposed to regard this supplement as a second 
parable drawn from oral tradition (in spite of its unmistakable Mat- 
thaisms of language) on account of its maladjustment to the context 
(for how are the wedding garments to be obtained?). Oral tradition 
has probably played its part, because Mt has a minimum of real 
originality. But Mt 22:11-14 is not drawn from any known Christian 
source whether oral or written. Its affiliations are purely Jewish. 
For in all the parallels from rabbinic tradition adduced by Fiebig 
as examples of Jewish parabolic teaching there is none which can 
compare in closeness with the parable of Johanan ben Zacchai com- 
menting on the passage in Eccl. 9:8 "Let thy garments be always 
white. " Johanan made this text a command to fulfil "the command- 
ments and good works of the Torah" "always"; that is, in constant 
expectation of the Judgment. Judah the Prince (c. 200) tells the 
parable in Johanan's name in support of this interpretation: 

To whom shall we liken the matter? 

To a certain King who made a banquet and invited guests. He said to 
them, "Go, wash, cleanse, and anoint yourselves; put on clean garments 
and prepare for the banquet"; but he set no time for their coming. Now 
the prudent lingered at the door of the King's palace, saying, "Will any- 
thing be wanting (for a banquet) in a king's palace?" But the foolish 
took no heed and were not observant of the King's word. They said, "We 
shall notice in time the hour for the King's banquet. Is there ever a ban- 
quet without preparations?" Thus they talked with one another. And 
the whitewasher betook himself to his lime, the potter to his clay, the 
smith to his charcoal, the fuller to his laundry. Suddenly the King sent 
word: "Let all go in to the banquet." So they made haste; the one group 
entered in their festal garments, the other in their disarray. But the King 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 73 

took pleasure in the prudent because they had honored the word of the 
King; yea, because they had even had regard for his palace. 8 And he was 
angry with the foolish because they had paid no heed to the King's word 
and had dishonored his palace. Then said the King: These who prepared 
themselves for the banquet may go in and eat at the King's table, but 
those who did not prepare may not eat at the King's table; at the most 
they may take their leave and withdraw. Nay; rather, let these sit at my 
table and eat and drink, while the others stand up and take their punish- 
ment; they shall look on and be envious. 

So shall it be in the future; this is that which was spoken by Isaiah (Is. 
65:13) "Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry." 

Motive and standpoint of this parable of c. 70 A.D. are not wholly 
alien from the authentic teaching of Jesus (c/. Mk 13 :33 :37 and paral- 
lels). But they are distinctive of Mt's; even the form and style agree- 
ing. Emphasis on inward vs. outward is distinctive in Jesus' teaching. 
Emphasis on "now" vs. "hereafter" is more characteristic of "the 
most apocalyptic of our evangelists. " On all grounds, non-appear- 
ance in Lk, style, location, and motive, the supplement is Mat- 
thean; though not, of course, without oral precedent. Shall we as- 
sume without evidence that this was Christian tradition, handing 
down a saying of Jesus elsewhere unrecorded? Or shall we hold that 
Mt is here dependent on the tradition of the Synagogue transmitted 
in the Jewish line from Johanan ben Zacchai (c. 70) to Judah the 
Prince (c. 200), through the medium of R. Me'ir (130-160) and R. 
Eliezer (90-130)? 

A closer approximation than 80-100, or more exactly 90-95, for 
this Gospel is hardly required; because the purpose for which the date 
is sought is to bring the writing into true relation with its environ- 
ment, particularly the mental environment of contemporary Christian 
literature. Now the history of the period is extremely obscure, and 
few Christian writings survive from it, these few being themselves 
in most cases difficult to date with precision. Enough, however, 
are available to determine the atmosphere of the time. 

The best assured as respects date is the Revelation of John, a 
composite apocalypse which in its latest, or Ephesian form, prefixes 
seven letters of the Spirit to the churches of Asia, and can be dated 
"in the end of the reign of Domitian (c. 93)." First Clement is 
probably not more than a year or two later. To this period belong also 
the great "false prophets and false Christs," who come forward with 
the self-deifying utterances which Celsus observed as characteristic 
of the religious enthusiasts of "Phoenicia and Palestine," "false 
prophets" who said "I am God; I am the Son (mus) of God"; or 

8 That is, by assuming that there would be no lack of supplies, and hence no 
opportunity to take note of special preparations. 



74 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

"I am the Spirit of God, " etc. (Origen, Ctr. Celsus, VI, xi. and VII, 
ix.; cf. Eusebius, HE, III, xxvi.). Dositheus and Simon Magus (more 
especially the latter) may well be referred to in Mk 13:22 f. Mt's 
parallel (24:24 f.) might even tactily include in the Samaritan group 
Menander of Capparatea, and in Transjordan El-kesi (the Hidden 
One) whose apocalyptic prophecies were recorded in the early years 
of Trajan (98-101). 

Unfortunately it is not possible to date with precision the Pastoral 
Epistles (90-95?), which are loud in their complaint against a growing 
heresy of "vain talkers and deceivers, specially those of the circum- 
cision," expressly foretold by the prophetic Spirit as typical of "the 
last times" (Ti. 1:10 ff.; II Tim. 3:1 ff., 4:3 f.; I Tim. 1:3 ff., 4:1-5). 
The remedies recommended are the same as Mt's, the "health-giving 
words" of Jesus to counteract the "sickly" questionings of the false 
teachers (I Tim. 6:3 ff.), practice of his "commandment" (6:14), 
"good works" (Ti. 3:8-11), and above all church discipline (I Tim. 
passim, II Tim. 2:14-17, 3:13 ff.; Ti. 1:5-3:11): P. N. Harrison in 
his volume The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (1921) has given a 
convincing philological demonstration that the particular elements 
of the Pastoral Epistles with which we are concerned date from c. 
90-95. There can be little doubt that the allusion to a prediction by 
the Spirit of an apostasy in the last times refers to the Little Apoca- 
lypse (Mk 13:5, 21-23=Mt 24:4 f., 23-25 and 24:11 f.). Unfortunately 
the reference is too general to make practicable identification of 
either its Matthean or its Markan form. Quite probably it reflects 
a form earlier than either. We can only say that Mt, Revelation, 
and the Pastorals confront the same perils of church demoralization, 
but that the coincidence of remedies to be applied is not a matter of 
literary dependence. Evil and remedy alike belong to the spirit of 
the age. 

Still more difficult to date exactly are the "general" Epistles of 
Jas. and Jude, both of which, but especially Jude, show close affinity 
with Mt. Jas. is principally concerned with the growing worldliness 
of the Church catholic, and the tendency to "vain talk" (ftaraioXoyia) 
as a substitute for good works. Jude dwells more on the doctrinal 
side of the heresy, which rebels against church discipline and mocks 
at the threat of impending judgment at the Lord's Coming. Both 
church writers are emphatic on the rewards and penalties of "the 
last days" and "the Coming of the Lord" (Jas. 3:1; 4:11 ff.; 5:1-9; 
Jude passim). Jas. can only be dated with certainty between 75 and 
125 (Ropes in ICC). It has been placed by the present writer less 
certainly c. 90 (Introd., p. 165). Jude, which again makes specific 
reference to the apostolic prediction of the -n-Xavi] (verses 17-19), 
was placed "not far from " the same date (ibid., p. 170). Slightly later 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 75 

are the Epistles and Gospel of Jn, which deal with the heresy more 
on the doctrinal side, while Ps-Barnabas (132?) with its pronounced 
neo-legalism is later still. Ignatius and Polycarp (115) reveal the 
same conditions and apply the same remedies. Second Pt (130-140?) 
goes beyond Jude to plunge us into the midst of the Chiliastic con- 
troversy, concerned with denials of "the resurrection and judgment" 
(Polycarp vii.). 

What, then, are the salient characteristics and perils of the Church 
in Mt's age? For, as we have noticed, his horizon, like that of the 
"general" Epistles, is wide. He contemplates the spread of Christi- 
anity "among all the nations," and has in view the problems and 
perils of a world-wide "Church" of Christ (16:19; 24:14; 28:19 f.). 
He envisages a new Israel, a "nation" which brings forth the fruits 
God expects from his "vineyard" (21:44), and encourages the apoca- 
lyptic hope for an impending "consummation. " 

The following features stand out strikingly as soon as we raise the 
question of Mt's implied environment: 

(1) As respects conditions within the Church. It appears to be a 
time of lassitude and moral relaxation. The love of many has "grown 
cold." Mt feels keenly the lack of "good works," and spurs disciples 
on to set an example to the world in this particular (24:12; 5:13-16). 
He appeals especially to expectation of the coming Day of the Son of 
Man, when "all nations" will be gathered before "the throne of his 
glory" to receive "every man according to his deeds" (7:22 f.; 16:27; 
25:31 ff.). The doers of good works will receive bliss in "the kingdom 
prepared from the foundation of the world," the empty-handed "ever- 
lasting torment prepared for the devil and his angels." 

A further contemporary remedy for this demoralization in the 
Church is stricter discipline. Mt approves this method. For while 
the Church is forbidden to attempt a premature separation of the 
good from the bad (13:36-43, 47-50) it must submit on most points 
of conduct to authoritative rulings by its governors. "Peter" in 
16:18 f., the body of disciples in 18:18, are given authority to "bind 
and loose." Excommunication, when unavoidable, must be carried 
out according to fixed rules (18:17). 

The conditions of the time as we have seen, are not reflected in 
Mt only. The rebuke of the Spirit sent through Jn to the Church in 
Laodicea in 93 A.D. reveals similar lassitude and lukewarmness (Rev. 
3:15-22). This church, like that in Ephesus (Rev. 2:4 f.), had "left 
its first love" and ceased to do "the former works." The Epistle of 
Jas. deplores the prevailing lack of "good works," the outcome of a 
heresy of justification "by faith only, apart from works" (1:12-2:26). 
Jas. sees a religion of talk in place of deeds, and utters warnings of the 
coming Day of the Lord, a judgment day which will bring reward 



76 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

to those who have patiently endured to the end (5:7-11), but condem- 
nation to the worldly-minded (2:1-13; 4:1-17) and to the heartless 
rich (5:1-6). Jude and I Jn are no less concerned than Jas. about this 
moral relaxation, I Jn 3 :17 f . repeating almost the language of Jas. 
2:14 ff. against the kind of "faith" which makes words a substitute 
for deeds. Jude makes the same appeal as Mt to fear of judgment 
to come, indulging in similar denunciation of the teachers of "law- 
lessness" and consignment of them to the "outer darkness" and 
everlasting torments of Hell. Only, in Jude, and still more in First 
Jn, the moral laxity and "lawlessness" denounced by all three is laid 
much more distinctly than in Mt to the charge of a definite system 
of false teaching. 9 Ps-Barnabas and I Clement belong to regions 
relatively remote, but the neo-legalism of Barnabas and the emphasis 
on church discipline of Clement are worthy of note as everywhere 
characteristic of the time. 

On Ignatius' insistence on obedience to the bishop, and tightening 
of church discipline, as chief remedy for the inroads of heresy, we 
need not dwell. Polycarp (115) and Papias (140) echo the complaint 
of the Pastoral Epistles against the "vain talk of the many" and the 
false teachers, who bring in "alien commandments" and neglect 
the "commandments given by the Lord to the faith." Polycarp, 
particularly, specifies "perverting the oracles of the Lord to their 
own lusts, and denying the resurrection and judgment" as the dis- 
tinctive marks of the false teachers. He is followed, as respects the 
latter characteristic, by the supplements Second Pt thinks it desirable 
to attach to the denunciation of Jude. With the partial exception 
of the author of the Gospel and Epistles of Jn the writers even of 
the Pauline churches seem in this period to have gone over to neo- 
legalism and church discipline as their best weapons against "acute 
Hellenization." Especially in Syria have those who were "of Ce- 
phas" by this time well-nigh eclipsed in influence the followers of 
Paul. Lk-Acts forms no exception, revolt came only with Marcion 
in 140. 

How far the Gospel of Mt contributed to, and how far it was itself 
impelled and directed by this reactionary tide, it would be difficult 
to say. In any event its dominant motives coincide with those of the 
consolidating Church catholic of the post-Pauline age, and must be 
understood and valued accordingly. The literature and conditions 
of 90-100 A.D. give us no hold sufficiently definite for accurate dating, 
but once this general date is determined the Gospel as a whole shows 
itself the true product of its age, the age of Revelation, the Pastoral 
Epistles, Jas. and Jude. 

(2) External conditions as reflected in Mt are again such as char- 

9 See, however, Mt 7:15ff. and 24:11 f. 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 77 

acterize this same period. Nero's onslaught on the Christians at 
Rome no doubt produced local attacks elsewhere, though these were 
held in check during the reigns of Vespasian and Titus. Systematic 
persecution as an Imperial policy applied throughout the Empire 
is first heard of under Domitian (81-96). Mt in his first employment 
of Mk 13:9 in the Mission of the Twelve leaves unchanged Mk's 
generalizing prediction of hatred by "all men" (10:22). In 24:9 ff. 
he rewrites the prediction, taking pains now to specify that this 
hatred will be shown by "all the Gentiles." In borrowing Mk's 
description of demoralized conditions inside the Church (Mt. 24:10 
= Mk 13:12) he attaches still another warning against the "false 
prophets" (verse 11), in addition to those of verse 5 (=Mk 13:6) 
and verse 24 (=Mk 13:22), holding their teaching of "lawless- 
ness" responsible for the "cooling of love" in the Church (verse 
12). The recasting of the paragraph, changing the order of its 
elements and adding to them, can only have taken place in an en- 
deavor to define more exactly the course of coming events. Its 
closing words "and then shall the End come" define the evangelist's 
horizon. 

We have seen that the ovv resumptive with which Mt takes up 
Mk's section describing the Profanation, the Judean War and accom- 
panying Tribulation (Mt 24:15-22=Mk 13:14-20) should suffice, 
apart from the "horizon" just indicated, to show that this section 
is epexegetic. Mk, after his well-known manner, digresses in order to 
particularize certain salient and unusual features of the "tribulation" 
to be endured, resuming his warning against the "false prophets" 
in 13 :23-25. Mt follows suit. Hence when he in turn resumes after 
his supplement from Q (26-28 =Lk 17:23 f., 37) the point of attach- 
ment is not to be sought in the digression, but just before it, at the 
words "and then shall the End come." The description of "the End" 
in 29-31 is prepared for by the carefully rewritten paragraph 9-14. 
This puts the order of events as follows : 

Tribulation and world-wide persecution (verse 9) 

Demoralization in the Church (verse 10). 

The False Prophets and -n-Aavij (verses 11-13). 

World- wide Proclamation of the Gospel and End (verse 14). 

There is a certain change of emphasis in this rearrangement of 
Mk's perspective, as we should expect from Mt's repeated insertion 
of warnings against the teachers of "lawlessness" (7:15-23; 13:38- 
42), of which verses 11 f. constitute the third and last. The subject 
of persecution has fallen somewhat into the background. The Profan- 
ation and War section of Mk (Mk 13:14-20) is still retained, but 
greater interest is displayed in the -n-Xav^. Mt betrays thus an 
affinity with the author of the prefatory Epistles of the Spirit in the 



78 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Johannine Apocalypse. These later additions contrast with the main 
body of the book. They look back upon a period of martyrdom 
which in chh. 4-20 is brought vividly into the foreground. The Asian 
introduction recalls the heroism of "faithful martyrs" (2:13) and 
occasionally predicts further persecution; but it is far more deeply 
concerned about the "false prophets" and prophetesses who "teach 
my servants to commit fornication and to eat idolothuta," a subject 
totally foreign to the main body of the book. 

Clement of Rome at the same date (95) likewise looks back upon 
the sufferings of the martyrs (v. 1-vi. 4) ; but his present concern is 
with insubordination in the Church. He seems to be writing from a 
period of Imperial toleration, after the great tribulation of Domi- 
tian's time has passed (i. 1). On the contrary First Pt. is solely con- 
cerned with the "fiery trial" to which not only the churches of Asia 
are subjected, but also their "brethren throughout the world." 
Even Hb., whose main purpose is to breathe courage into a church 
formerly victorious in a "great fight of afflictions" to meet an impend- 
ing new onslaught, has but a single trace of apprehension for the 
teachers of lawlessness, who like Esau would sell their birthright of 
citizenship in Heaven to gratify a transient appetite (Hb. 12:15 f.). 
There seems thus to be a decided change of emphasis between the 
earlier writings of this period of the reign of Domitian, and the later. 
The earlier are so preoccupied with the assaults of the devil going 
about as a roaring lion that they ignore his subtler attacks as a 
beguiling serpent. 10 

As between the conditions of the earlier time and the later Mt 
unquestionably belongs with the later and Mk with the earlier. The 
beginnings of heresy are not forgotten in Mk nor the persecutions 
in Mt, but it would be difficult to deny that the reconstruction to 
which Mt has subjected Mk's Doom-chapter has brought the perils 
of heresy into the foreground, while persecution, though still vividly 
remembered, has retired to a less conspicuous place. The difference 
is too slight to be relied upon as a means of dating, but once an ap- 
proximate date is found in a "comparatively late" stage of church 
development "after the death of Peter and Paul," the environment 
proves to be what the literature of the period would lead us to expect. 
Mk might have been written from the midst of the period of storm 
and stress when Domitian was still demanding submission to the 
tyrant's formula dominus et deus noster, when Christians in Asia Minor 
were girding up the loins of their mind to "sanctify in their hearts 
Christ as Lord" neither fearing nor being troubled (I Pt. 3:14 f.). 

10 On this change of front from resistance against persecution to resistance 
against "lawlessness," its personages, date, and the practices involved, see espe- 
cially Eusebius, HE, IV, vii. 



INFERENCE FROM SOURCES TO DATE 79 

Mt could more easily come from that period of relief of which Hegesip- 
pus tells, after the cruel Emperor had dismissed in contempt James 
and Zoker (Zacharias), the grandsons of Jude, as harmless peasants; 
the period when these "martyrs," returning to Palestine, became 
leaders of the churches against the new peril of heresy which now 
began its assault from within (Euseb. HE, III, xx. 1-8, and xxxii. 
6-8). 



CHAPTER VI 

MT'S USE OF MK 
(2) STRUCTURE 

IT is fortunately no longer necessary to demonstrate the dependence 
of Mt on Mk, but merely to observe its proportion, nature, and 
method. We have observed how unanimous is the agreement among 
scholars that our first Gospel is in substance an amplified edition of 
Mk prefaced by a new Introduction and expanded by the addition 
of large amounts of teaching material, most of which is commonly 
designated Q because drawn from a source (or sources) largely shared 
by Lk. The order of Mk is sacrificed in two of Mt's subdivisions 
(Books II and III), and everywhere narrative is abridged in favor 
of discourse. In this one may recognize an attempt to correct the 
two defects of the older Gospel which are pointed out by "the Elder" 
in Papias' report of tradition current not much later than Mt's own 
date. Mk only related "some" (eiaa) of the sayings of Jesus, which 
had now become the standard of orthodoxy (I Tim. 6:3) and already 
in Papias' time raised to the level of divine "oracles" (XoTta). Again 
Mk had been unable to give even these in their true order, because not 
himself an eyewitness but only an attendant on the discourses of 
Peter; and Peter's discourses had not been given with the object 
of constructing an orderly compend of the Lord's oracles but each 
"as the occasion required." 

Mt frames his Gospel as though expressly to meet this criticism. 
It is an attempt so to supplement Mk as to make of it an "orderly" 
syntax of the Lord's logia; but "order" for Mt has reference to proper 
arrangement of the commandments. 

Lk shows a consciousness of the same defects in Mk, and uses al- 
most identical remedies. He also writes a new Introduction (1 :4-2 :52) 
and inserts masses of discourse material largely drawn from the same 
source as Mt's. Lk's rearrangement of the order, however, is not 
aimed at a avvra&s r&v 'Koyiuv, but at a 51177770-15 Aex0ej>rcoj> i\ 
irpaxdevruv such as the Roman evangelist had previously composed. 
Consequently, while Lk makes an occasional self-evident change in 
Mk's order (e.g., Lk 3:19 f.) this is purely in the interest of better 
chronological sequence. He limits himself otherwise on this score 
to interjecting two large sections of non-Markan material in 6:20-8:3 

80 



STRUCTURE. MT'S USE OF MK 81 

and 9:51-18:14, and superseding the greater part of Mk's Passion 
narrative by another of unknown derivation. The striking resem- 
blances of general structure and sources between Mt and Lk lend 
much cogency to the argument of Stanton and Streeter for a date so 
nearly approximating these two revisers of Mk that neither can have 
been aware of the undertaking of the other. At the same time we 
should not forget the important differences involved in Mt's under- 
taking to make a systematic compend of the logia, and Lk's to com- 
pose a more readable "narrative" (Sirens) than his predeces- 
sors of events "in their order." 

The governing principle of Mt's revised version of the Reminis- 
cences of Peter (aTronvrjuovevnaTa ILerpov) for so we may infer from 
Papias and Justin the Roman Gospel was called was to furnish 
a full and "orderly" compend of the Lord's commandments. This 
seems to be the judgment of Papias on the work, and if so the ancient 
writer has correctly divined the evangelist's intention. For, as we 
have already seen, 1 the Gospel of Mt, when compared with Mk, dis- 
plays exactly this difference. Its compiler conceives it as the chief 
duty of the twelve to be "scribes made disciples to the kingdom of 
heaven" (11 :52). It is their function, in the words of Jesus, to evangel- 
ize the world by "teaching all men everywhere to obey all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you" (28:19 f.). Mt's own task could 
only differ from the disciples' as respects method, his being indirect 
and literary instead of direct and oral. He would be systematic. But 
as respects system Mt's idea is typically Hebraic. Unmistakably 
he is of Jewish origin and training, with unbounded reverence for the 
Law; consequently he cannot conceive of any arrangement of "com- 
mandments to be observed" better than the Mosaic. The Torah 
consists of five books of the commandments of Moses, each body of 
law introduced by a narrative of considerable length, largely con- 
cerned with the "signs and wonders" by which Jehovah "with an 
outstretched hand and a mighty arm" redeemed his people from 
Egyptian bondage. Mt is a "converted rabbi," a Christian legalist. 
Each of the "five books" of his "syntaxis of the logia" of Jesus be- 
gins with an introductory narrative and closes with a stereotyped 
formula linking its discourse to the next succeeding narrative sec- 
tion. The formula "and it came to pass when Jesus had finished 
these," etc., seems to be derived, like many other formulae of Mt, 
from S; for it occurs once in Lk also (Mt 7:28 = Lk 7:1, j8 text), 
and this at the same point where Mt first uses it, the close of 
the great discourse on Filial Righteousness. So clearly marked is 
this division that it has not only attracted the attention of modern 
critics since critical study of the Gospel began, but had been 

1 Above, pp. 47 ff. 



82 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

observed as early as the second century if we may thus date the 
iambic verses above referred to, which speak of "Matthew" as 
writing "five books" against the "God-slaying" people of the 
Jews. 2 

No attempt to define the nature and purpose of Mt's revision of 
Mk is adequate which does not bring into true perspective this con- 
structive feature of the work. It is not enough to take up seriatim 
the particular changes effected by the evangelist in the order and lan- 
guage of his model, though this has been done many times, notably 
by Allen in his volume of the ICC. To understand why these changes 
are made, more especially the changes of order in Books II and III, 
one must gain some insight into the evangelist's design as revealed 
in the outline and structure of his compilation. For these five Books 
are certainly not, as imagined by Godet and some of the older critics, 
derived from an earlier composition such as the imaginary "Logia 
spoken of by Papias," but with the single exception of the first (wholly 
composed of S material) are uniformly built up on the basis of Mk. 
They therefore belong strictly to Mt himself so far as structural 
arrangement is concerned, and indeed can be proved by evidence of 
phraseology and purpose to 'be, even as respects material, the work 
of his own pen to a much larger extent than is commonly realized. 
This demonstration will naturally be reserved for our special chap- 
ters introductory to each of the five Books. For the present we limit 
ourselves to notice of the fact and its significance. The purpose of 
our evangelist in revising and expanding the Gospel of Mk is to 
furnish an ordered Compend of the Commandments of Jesus. His 
method is to introduce large extracts of S material, also revised and 
expanded, in the form of five discourses of Jesus, the first on Filial 
Righteousness (chh. 5-7), the second on The Duty of Evangelists 
(ch. 10), the third on The Mystery of the Kingdom (ch. 13), the 
fourth on The Duty of Church Administrators (ch. 18), the fifth 
on Preparedness for the Coming (chh. 23-25). Naturally the nar- 
rative introductions are in most cases principally based on Mk, 
though in III, A most of the material is from the Second Source, 
and in I, A and V, A, Q furnishes considerable sections of the intro- 
ductory narrative. In chh. 1 f . a general Introduction or Preamble, 
derived neither from S nor Mk, is prefixed to the whole composi- 
tion. Its material naturally calls for special study as throwing 
most light on the particular standpoint and environment of the 
evangelist. 3 

Deferring to the chapters of special introduction to Books II and 

2 See my article "The Five Books of Matthew against the Jews" in Expositor, 
VIII, 85 (Jan., 1918). 

3 For the divisions and nomenclature, see Preface, p. vi. 



STRUCTURE. MT'S USE OF MK 83 

III the discussion of Mt's rearrangement here of the Markan order, 
from which he scarcely deviates throughout the rest of the Gospel, 
we may now turn to his peculiar use of the Roman Gospel which he 
has made the framework for his entire work. 

This arrangement has been exhibited at length with accurate sta- 
tistics in the volume of Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem edited 
by Canon Sanday (1911) 4 but may be restated more conveniently 
and briefly in the following extract from P. A. Micklem (Westminster 
Commentary, 1917, p. xx. f.). 

In Mt's use of Mk, it may especially be noted that 

(a) he incorporates nearly the whole of it: the omissions consisting only 
of seven subsidiary sections (1:23-28, 35-39; 4:26-29; 7:32-37; 8:22-26; 
9:38-40; 12:41-44): and presumably being made either for the sake of 
abbreviation or because of some quality which from Mt's standpoint 
made them unsuitable for inclusion. 

(b) Mt largely rearranges Mk's order. This rearrangement is specially 
noticeable in Mk 1-6 =Mt 3-13:58, after which Mk's order is followed 
with more or less of closeness. 

One instance of this rearrangement will suffice. In chh. 8, 9 Mt has 
grouped together a number of our Lord's works of healing without regard 
to their chronological order. The following table will show how in this 
section he has used in the main Marcan material but completely rear- 
ranged it. 

The leper Mt 8: 1- 4=Mk 1:40-44 

The centurion's servant 5-13 not in Mk 

Peter's mother-in-law 14-17= 1 :29-31 

The tempest and Gadarene 

demoniac 23-34=4:35-5:20 

Paralytic at Capernaum 9: 1- 8=2:1-12 

Jairus' daughter and woman 

with issue 18-26 = 5 :22-43 

The two blind men 27-31 not in Mk 

The dumb demoniac 32 f . not in Mk 

(c) Mt largely conflates or groups together material derived from varied 
sources or from varied parts of the same source. 

"Mt 10, the charge to the disciples, furnishes an example: 
Call and naming of the dis- 
ciples Mt 10: 1- 5=Mk 3:13-19 
Original charge and mission 7-15=6:7-13 
Additional directions 16-42 from non-Marcan 

sources 

It may be noted in passing that in regard to all the points above noted 
Lk differs from Mt in his use of the second Gospel. He omits much more 
than Mt, follows Mk's order far more closely, and generally speaking 
follows one source only at a time. 

4 See especially pp. 145-151. 



84 



STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



(d) Mt largely abbreviates Marcan narratives and makes changes both 
in incidental details and in phraseology in accordance with his own literary 
style and stage of reflection. The following passage will serve to illustrate 
Mt's use of Mk in these respects: 



Mt 8:23-27 

18 Now when Jesus saw great 
multitudes about him, he gave com- 
mandment to depart to the other 
side. 

23 And when he was entered into 
a boat, his disciples followed him. 

24 And behold, there arose a 
great tempest in the sea, insomuch 
that the boat was covered with the 
waves: but he was asleep. 

25 And they came to him and 
awoke him, saying, Save, Lord: we 
perish. 



26 And he saith unto them, Why 
are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? 

Then he arose, and rebuked the 
winds and the sea; and there was a 
great calm. 



27 And the men marvelled, say- 
ing, What manner of man is this, 
that even the winds and the sea 
obey him? 



Mk 4:35-41 

35 And on that day, when even 
was come, he saith unto them, Let 
us go over unto the other side. 

36 And leaving the multitude, 
they take him with them, even as 
he was, in the boat. And other boats 
were with him. 

37 And there ariseth a great 
storm of wind, and the waves beat 
into the boat, insomuch that the 
boat was now filling. 

38 And he himself was in the 
stern asleep on the cushion: and 
they awake him, and say unto him, 
Master, carest thou not that we per- 
ish? 

39 And he awoke and rebuked the 
wind, and said unto the sea, peace, 
be still. And the wind ceased, and 
there was a great calm. 

40 And he saith unto them, Why 
are ye fearful? Have ye not yet 
faith? 

41 And they feared exceedingly 
and said one to another, Who, then, 
is this, that even the wind and the 
sea obey him? 



The words in bold-face italics denote changes in details of incident and 
in phraseology made by Mt. 

The bold-face roman type denotes details in Mk omitted by Mt. 

We note (a) that, as the incident is given a different setting in Mt from 
that in Mk, the introduction is changed to mark the change of circum- 
stance c/. Mt 8:18 with Mk 4:35. 

(b) that certain details in Mk, which add picturesque colour to the 
narrative but no more, are omitted by Mt for the sake of abbreviation. 
The presence of the other boats 36, the place in the boat where the Lord 
lay asleep 38, the direct address to the sea 39, are omitted in Mt's more 
concise account. 

(c) that Mt adds "behold" 24, "came to" 25, phrases characteristic 
of him. 

(d) that Mt makes changes out of reverence partly for our Lord, and 
partly for the disciples. In Mk verses 35 f. the embarking and crossing 



STRUCTURE. MT'S USE OF MK 85 

are proposed, not commanded, by our Lord, while the disciples take the 
initiative in action almost forcible. In Mt verses 18, 23 our Lord is su- 
preme. He gives the command, and after being the first to embark is fol- 
lowed by his disciples. Again the half -reproachful "carest thou not . . .," 
Mk 38, becomes in Mt a cry for help, "Save, Lord," 25. So again the 
character and behavior of the disciples is set in a better light in Mt than 
in Mk. The direct rebuke, "Have ye not yet faith?", Mk 40, becomes the 
characteristic Matthean phrase "0 ye of little faith," 26; the words 
"feared exceedingly," 41, are toned down to the less reproachful "mar- 
velled," 27. 

The effect of this concise and conservative statement will be height- 
ened by a few supplementary observations under each of its four 
heads. 

(a) The "seven" omissions of subsidiary sections from Mk will 
be further reduced in number, and the significance of the one or two 
which are really such will be enhanced, if it be observed that in almost 
every case the apparent omission can be accounted for, Mt having 
either compensated for it in some way, or else shown that he prefers 
a different version of the same anecdote, or has so thoroughly re- 
written it as to lead many to overlook or deny a basic identity. The 
only one of the seven which gives color to the idea that it may have 
been absent from Mt's copy of Mk is the Widow's Mites (Mk 12:41- 
44). For the rest we note: (1) The abbreviation of Mk 1:16-39 in 
Mt 4:18-25, following R mt>s general practice with narrative material, 
leads to the neglect of an exorcism (Mk 1:23-28) which to some 
extent duplicates Mk 5:l-20=Mt 8:28-34. The view taken by Mk 
1 :34b, a view illustrated by the exorcism in question, is objectionable 
to Mt. 5 Nevertheless he compensates for the omission by doubling 
the exorcism of Mk 5:l-20=Mt 8:28-34. The night retirement of 
Jesus after the opening Sabbath in Capernaum conflicts with Mt's 
idea of the use of miracle and could be regarded as unimportant. 

(2) The Parable of the Patient Husbandman (Mk 4:26-29) is not 
"omitted" by Mt but rewritten in the same relative position, to 
inculcate a lesson of peculiar interest to himself. 6 The motive of the 
added feature of the "tares," with parallels demonstrating that Mt 
himself is responsible for the change, is set forth in our chapter 
introductory to Book III. 

(3) Mk 7:32-37 and 8:22-26 constitute a pair of typically Markan 
elaborations of the therapeutic method of Jesus. In such cases Mt 
invariably abbreviates. 7 But for these omissions also he compensates, 
if, indeed, we should not rather say he recognizes and avoids a 

6 See my article "The Markan Theory of Demonic Recognition of the Christ" 
in ZNW.VI (1905), pp. 153-158. 

6 Cf. OS, p. 432, note 3. 

7 On this point cf. Allen, ICC, p. xxxii. f. 



86 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Markan duplication. In GM (1925, p. 162 f.) I have shown that both 
Mt and Lk betray a certain consciousness of this duplication. Mt, as 
usual, clings much more closely to Mk, omitting only the companion 
healings of 7:32-37 and 8:22-26; whereas Lk passes over Mk 6:45- 
8:26. But in 9:27-34 Mt again makes his curious compensation by 
reduplication. Jesus now heals two blind men. In 12:22, the Q equiva- 
lent of Mk 7:32-37, the healing of the dumb man is also related, but 
with the addition that he was also "blind." 

(4) Mk 9:38-40 is a striking instance of substitution rather than 
omission. The logion of verse 40 is reproduced in the Q form (Mt 
12:30=Lk 11:23), which Mk inverts. The doctrine of toleration 
which Mk supports (wonder-working in the name of Jesus by out- 
siders not to be opposed) is emphatically condemned by Mt 7:21- 
23. The passage is rewritten by Mt from Q material with especial 
reference to his bete noire, the wonder-working "false prophets." 
Acts 18:13-20 shows a similar reaction on Lk's part toward the 
"false prophets" who exorcise by the name of Jesus, coupling them 
with the users of "Ephesian letters," or magic spells. Mk agrees 
rather with Paul (Phil 1:18). 

The only remaining instance of omission by Mt of Markan ma- 
terial is that of the Widow's Mites, Mk 12:41-44, a disconnected 
anecdote of Lukan type attached to the phrase "widows' estates" 
in Mk 12:40. Some reason exists for thinking this a tradition of the 
Jerusalem "elders" related in Ev. Hebr, along with that of the Woman 
taken in Adultery. 8 It is possible, therefore, that Mk 12 :41-44 may be 
a later attachment to the second Gospel which failed to make its way 
into the text employed by Mt. We may of course disregard the late 
texts which insert Mk 12:40=Lk 20:47 as Mt 23:14. 

(b) As will appear in our chapter introductory to Book II the 
group of Ten Mighty Works in Mt in 8 f . is compiled with reference 
to the Charge to the Twelve which follows in ch. 10, because these 
are sent forth to preach and to heal (10:1). For the detail of Mt's 
arrangement the reader may also consult my article "Editorial 
Arrangement in Mt 8-9 " (Expositor, XIX, Eighth Series, 111, March, 
1920, pp. 200-218). The displacement of the Markan section Mt 
12:l-14=Mk 2:23-3:6 is of course due to the fact that this portion 
of Mk's group illustrating the Growth of Hostility (Mk 2:1-3:6) is 
better adapted to Mt's narrative section introductory to the Hiding 
of the Mystery of the Kingdom than to that which introduces the 
Charge to the Twelve. Apart from the composition of these two 
groups, the narrative introduction to Book II, mainly based on Mk, 
and that to Book III, mainly based on S, Mt makes no material 
change in the order of Mk. 
8 See Appended Note VI. 



STRUCTURE. MT'S USE OF MK 87 

(c) Mt's agglutinations, or "conflation" of "material derived from 
varied sources or from varied parts of the same source," should per- 
haps be regarded as an exception to the statement just made as to 
Matthean changes in the order of Mk. The two instances cited by 
Micklem (Mt 10:1-5 and 7-15 =Mk 3:13-19 and 6:7-13) would 
inevitably form part of the Mission of the Twelve (discourse of Book 
II) for any compiler aiming' to form such a group. The process is 
abundantly illustrated in the discourse of Book I, mainly formed 
from S q teachings derived from various contexts preserved in Lk. 
We could hardly expect Mt not to subject Markan discourse to 
similar rearrangement. However, the remaining discourses of Mt 
(Book III, Mt 13; Book IV, Mt 18, and Book V, Mt 23-25) make no 
change in the order of Mk. 

(d) The abbreviation of the narrative material of Mk in favor of 
discourse, whether derived from Mk or S, is easily verified from any 
synopticon. Micklem's example from Mt 8:23-27=Mk 4:35-41 is 
well chosen for the purpose specified. It shows not only the process 
of abbreviation, but the great freedom of change "in incidental 
details and in phraseology" which Mt permits himself merely to 
bring Mk's language into " accordance with his own literary style and 
stage of reflection." The selection is less well adapted to exhibit the 
modification the later evangelist is able to accomplish, and actually 
permits himself, in the meaning itself by slight but skilfully applied 
touches of the pen. 

For Mt is both skilful and bold in bringing out that which he re- 
gards as the truth of the matter. Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re ap- 
pears to be his motto. For these far more important and significant 
changes the passage selected by Micklem falls decidedly short of 
supplying adequate examples. Allen (ICC, pp. xxxi.-xxxiii.) has fur- 
nished a long and convincing series of examples of "alterations which 
seem due to an increasing feeling of reverence for the person of 
Christ," and has followed this (pp. xxxiii.-xxxv.) with an account of 
"similar alterations in favour of the disciples," then of "alterations 
due to a desire to emphasize a fulfilment of prophecy," then of 
"changes or brief insertions made to qualify or explain the meaning" 
of Mk, or "for the sake of greater accuracy," including several 
"changes in point of fact." Allen has the aim of "convincing the 
reader that of the two Gospels, that of Mk is primary, that of Mt sec- 
ondary." Our own readers may be assumed to need no further con- 
vincing on this score. It will be of greater interest to observe from an 
example scarcely touched upon by Allen and often wholly disregarded, 
how large liberty Mt permits himself in changes of doctrinal sense. 

We have seen above that "substitution" rather than "omission" 
is the proper term to apply to Mt 7:21-23 in relation to Mk 9:38-40. 



88 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

It has also been pointed out in a previous volume (BGS, p. 90) how 
by a minute touch in 15:22 Mt eliminates the whole (unhistorical) 
journey of Jesus into Gentile territory, a feat more drastically ac- 
complished by Lk by cancellation of the entire section Mk 6:45-8:26. 
The following example will illustrate how by unobtrusive alterations 
Mt succeeds not merely in removing an utterance of apparent self- 
depreciation placed by Mk in the mouth of Jesus, but (far more 
significant!) in reversing the sense of Mk's teaching that Pharisean 
obedience to the commandment, however lovable in itself, gives no 
real claim to "eternal life." 

Of course Mt does not assert that obedience to the Old Testament 
law is sufficient, but he does make Jesus teach that by adding to- 
gether "old and new" (cf. 13:52) this end may be attained on the 
typically Pharisean plan, obedience plus "good works." As before, 
we print in bold-face italics the changes of Mt, some of which effect 
only abbreviation, improvement of style, conformation of Scripture 
quotations to the Septuagint text, etc., but some go deeper. 

Mk 10:17-22 Mt 19:16-22 

And as he was going forth into the And lo, a man came up and said 
way a man ran up and fell on his to him, Teacher, what good thing 
knees and asked him, Good teacher, shall I do that I may have eternal 
what shall I do to inherit eternal life? But he said to him: Why 
life? But Jesus said to him, Why askest thou me concerning that 
callest thou me " good "? There is which is good? One there is who is 
none " good " but One even God. " good. " But if thou wouldest 
Thou knowest the commandments, enter into life, keep the command- 
Commit no adultery, commit no ments. Of what sort, said he. And 
murder, commit no theft, bear no Jesus said, The commandments 
false witness, commit no fraud, honor Thou shall not kill, thou shalt not 
thy father and thy mother. But he commit adultery, thou shalt not 
said to him, Teacher, all these things steal, thou shalt not bear false wit- 
I have observed from my youth, ness, honor thy father and thy 
And Jesus looked upon him and mother, and thou shalt love thy 
loved him and said to him, One thing neighbor as thyself. The youth 
thou lackest. Go, sell all that thou saith to him, I have kept all these; 
hast and give to the poor, and thou what lack I yet? Jesus said to him, 
shalt have treasure in heaven, and Go, sell all that belongs to thee and 
come, follow me. And his face fell give to the poor, ,and thou shalt 
at the saying, and he went away have treasure in heaven, and come, 
grieved, for he was one that had follow me. But when the youth 
great possessions. heard it he went away grieved, for 

he was one that had great posses- 
sions. 

Allen and others naturally call attention to the change in verses 
16 f. by which Mt escapes the implication of Mk that Jesus disap- 



STRUCTURE. MT'S USE OF MK 89 

proved the application to himself of the epithet "good." These 
critics properly enough class this change with others which show an 
"increased feeling of reverence." But too little attention is paid to 
the changes in the rest of the paragraph, although, as already pointed 
out, these invert the more Pauline doctrine of Mk that "eternal Me" 
is not the prize of obedience and good works but of self-surrender 
without reserve after the example of Christ. Mt's change produces 
a neo-legalistic doctrine which only differs from that of the scribes 
and Pharisees by the substitution of a " righteousness" which "ex- 
ceeds" theirs by greater inwardness and greater emphasis on "good 
works." This doctrinal change is the more significant for our present 
enquiry because we have the good fortune to possess a fragment of 
the Ev. Naz. preserved in the translation of Origen's Comm. in Mt 
(XV, 14). 9 Here this same Markan narrative of the Rich Enquirer 
is altered in precisely the same direction. For the midrashic addi- 
tions which we print in bold-face Roman type in the extract have 
no other object than to make clear the teaching that if the enquirer 
had really "kept the Law and the Prophets" instead of neglecting 
the "good works" they inculcate toward his "brethren," all would 
have been well. 

Another rich man said to him, Master, what good thing shall I do to 
have life? He said to him: Man, obey the Law and the Prophets. He 
answered him, I have done so. He said to him, Go, sell all that thou hast 
and distribute it to the poor and come, follow me. But the rich man be- 
gan to scratch his head, and it did not please him. And the Lord said to 
him, How sayest thou, "I have obeyed the Law and the Prophets"; whereas 
it is written in the Law, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself; and lo, many 
of thy brethren, the sons of Abraham, are clothed with filthy garments, dying 
of hunger, and thy house is full of many good things, and nothing whatsoever 
goes forth from it to them. And turning to Simon his disciple sitting beside 
him he said, Simon, son of John, it is easier for a camel to enter through 
the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of heaven. 

We cannot claim dependence on the part of Mt from ibis Nazarene 
version of the story, because the points of resemblance in style "Si- 
mon, son of John" Mt 16:17, "kingdom of heaven," "lo," "Law and 
Prophets" as in Mt 7:12, etc.), with others which recall one of Lk's 
sources (the address "Man"; c/. Lk 6:4 /3 text; "sons of Abraham," 
Lk 13:16; 19:9, etc.) are indicative rather of dependence in the re- 
verse direction. As Mt has rewritten Mk so the Nazarene Gospel 
has rewritten Mt. But the freedom displayed in this targumic ren- 
dering, joining the story to some other (that of Lk 16:19 ff. ?) and 

9 The translator has probably taken the extract from Jerome. See Appended 
Note VI. 



90 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

manipulating it with sole reference to the moral lesson, proves at least 
that down to this second-century date Aramaic-speaking Christians 
of the region of Aleppo were still composing such writings, and that 
their neo-legalistic conception of gospel teaching was identical with 
that of our first evangelist. 



CHAPTER VII 
THE EXTENT OF Q 

Two points already established will make it easier now to approach 
the difficult and disputed question of Mt's second source of material, 
much of which is shared by Lk. The chapters introductory to his 
several "books" will afford opportunity to enquire in further detail 
as to the particular contents and order of this source, or these sources; 
whether Lk has another, or others, unknown to Mt, etc. For the pres- 
ent we consider only the use Mt makes of S q . 

The common attempt to connect this "double-tradition" material 
with the witness of Papias has been shown to be fallacious. Conse- 
quently we are free from all preconceptions regarding its nature. 
No sufficient reason exists for holding that it consisted of short say- 
ings loosely connected (logia). We only know that both Mt and Lk 
employ it mainly to supply the Markan defect of teaching material. 
The fact that both these, but especially Mt, have made the narrative 
of Mk fundamental, dovetailing in the supplementary S material, 
merely shows that Mk enjoyed for both transcribers a certain (Pe- 
trine?) authority which made supplementation of its narrative from 
non-apostolic sources relatively inadvisable. 

On the other hand much of the Q material does consist of discourse 
introduced by a very slender thread of narrative, as in the case of 
the "dialogues" of the fourth Gospel, the speeches of Peter in Acts 
1-15, and those of the same apostle in the Clementina. Moreover, 
it should be recognized that the discourses of S q have the same 
"atomic" structure as the discourses of Mk 4, 9, and 13, and still more 
conspicuously those of Mt and Lk; that is, they consist of aggluti- 
nated logia, often strung together ad vocem rather than as logic and 
intrinsic sense require. In other words the "Spruchsammlung," or 
collection of loosely attached sayings, is the earlier type, not far re- 
moved from catechetic oral tradition; and this earlier method of agglu- 
tination actually survived as late as the formation of the Oxyrhynchus 
collection of A.6joL. The composition of discourses by agglutination 
of such "sayings," an advance from Spruchsammlung to Redesamm- 
lung, is the later process illustrated in different lines of development 
by Mk, Mt, Lk, and Jn. But the object in view was not always 
the same. Mt's discourses aimed at "commandments" grouped 
topically, Lk's at the pictorial or biographic ideal of StarptjSai on 
subjects of moral and religious interest. 

91 



92 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

It is quite natural, expecially for critics who believe that the ex- 
pression ffvvra&s T&V \oyiw applied by Papias to Mt in distinction 
from Mk can be transferred in some way to S, or who wish to carry 
back the composition of S to the earliest possible date, to make the 
utmost of the "atomic" structure of S q , and even to apply to 
this material the question-begging designation "Spruchsammlung." 
Thus even Wernle not only (a) applies the term Spruchsammlung 
(=ffvvTais r&v XOTICOV), but (b) reasons from it that narrative ele- 
ments such as the Baptism and Preaching of John must be later 
additions. Wernle differentiates, therefore, Q from Q', Q", etc., on 
the ground that the original document consisted exclusively of brief 
logiaOSF,p. 225): 

The sayings mentioned (Markan logia such as Mk 1:40-3:6; 3:31-4:9; 
12:13-44; Parousia sayings in Mk 13) are incongruous in the Spruch- 
sammlung because of their narrative, anecdotal character. These are no 
agglutinations of sayings, like all the discourses in Q, but in every case 
single short logia which form the nucleus of little stories, with introduction, 
appeal to Jesus, and close. Compare with this the discourses on Filial 
Righteousness, on Confession, on the Baptist, etc. The story of the Cen- 
turion obtained a place in Q only because of the important series (?) of 
logia at its close. Only in proportion as this distinction between anecdotes 
and discourses is observed or not is it possible to form a clear conception 
ofQ. 

If even Wernle, who rejects the Papias-Logia theory, can employ 
such circuitous reasoning as this it should cause no surprise to find 
the same reasoning, even to the use of the same examples in identical 
phraseology, in Harnack and Hawkins, both of whom approve a 
modified form of Schleiermacher's delusive theory. 

But the real question is not whether discrete Xoyot be not the 
older type of transmission; nor whether the S q discourses, like all 
others known to us, give evidence of building up by agglutination; 
both these points are irrelevant. The real question is: To what extent 
does the Q material indicate that the agglutinative process had ad- 
vanced in S? This question can be answered only by scrutiny of the 
Q material itself, whose contents must be listed. For while many 
partially satisfactory lists have been made many are also vitiated 
by false methods of construction. 

For present purposes it is unnecessary to go back to the earlier 
attempts at reconstruction of S described and tabulated by Moffatt 
(Introd., pp. 194-206). Any unprejudiced comparison of the sixteen 
will suffice to show that the difficulties in the way are great, though 
perhaps not insurmountable as Burkitt declares. 1 At least it is possible 
by careful comparison of the editorial methods of Mt and Lk as 

1 GHTr, p. 17. 



THE EXTENT OF Q 93 

applied to Mk to see "what inferences as to the nature and contents 
of" (S) can be drawn from the Q material. It is this "more humble 
and limited task" to which Sir J. C. Hawkins has set his ripe skill 
in the essay entitled "Probabilities as to the so-called Double Tradi- 
tion of Mt and Lk" (08, pp. 96-138). 

For the contents of Q the tabulation of Sir John under three divi- 
sions A, B, and C, of the 84 passages which have greater or less claim 
to the designation, must supersede the rougher lists of Wernle and 
Harnack. Class A includes no less than 54 "passages very probably 
derived from" S, Class B 22 "passages ascribable to Q with a consid- 
erable amount of probability" (marked with an obelus in later ref- 
erences), and Class C 8 "passages the origin of which in Q is but 
slightly probable." These eight are marked with a double obelus. 
Sir John finds natural satisfaction. in the close agreement of his list 
with that of Harnack in Btr. II published after his own was already 
typed. Nevertheless the particular feature in which these two coin- 
cide as against Wernle's more general list (p. 224), or indeed most 
of those tabulated by Moffatt, represents a weakness of method 
found in both, a weakness which is the defect of its merit. The 
method aims at objectivity, and to avoid all subjective judgments 
uses for its classification of A, B, and C the somewhat mechanical 
standard of word-counting. Hawkins employs for the purpose Rush- 
brook's Greek Synopticon, making coincidence of language the pri- 
mary test, with subordinate consideration of collocation and re- 
semblance of substance. 

The method is characteristic of this painstaking, modest, and 
cautious author. It won the outspoken admiration of Harnack, as 
it wins our own, because the basic facts must be such as permit of 
exact measurement. By such definite arithmetical data futile appeals 
to the obsolete theory of oral transmission and the no less obsolete 
theory of Lukan dependence on Mt are definitively barred. It is no 
longer possible to explain the sections of S q showing close ver- 
bal similarity by direct dependence of Lk upon Mt, or vice versa, 
while falling back on oral transmission to explain the rest. The 
steady, inexorable logic of Wernle and Harnack, establishes first the 
mutual independence of Mt and Lk, then, as an unavoidable corol- 
lary, their use in common of a single Greek document (or possibly 
more than one) to supply the deficiency of Mk on the score of teaching 
material. 

The use of the objective, statistical measuring rod is the strong 
point of Sir John, and it is used by both himself and Harnack with 
fatal results to the moribund oral-tradition and Lukan-dependence 
theories. Particularly is Harnack's discussion effective in showing 
that the Q material represents at least one individual Greek docu- 



94 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

ment, inclusive of the greater part of S q , having clearly definable 
characteristics of its own. Nevertheless this statistical measuring 
rod has its limitations, as Sir John himself is prompt to acknowledge. 

The volume of OS finely illustrates the characteristic motto of 
English scholarship audi alteram partem. Minority reports are ad- 
mitted from members of the Oxford group who dissent from the 
majority. The most important of these is contributed by Prof. 
Vernon Bartlet, who demurs to the Spruchsammlung theory and 
endeavors to obtain a hearing for a view more consonant with those 
of B. Weiss and the present writer. This will be considered in Chapter 
VIII. Less important, yet having a significance we cannot disregard, 
is the rejoinder of Allen to his critical opponents. 

We have seen above that the attempt of Allen to account for S q 
partly by a revived oral tradition theory, partly by direct dependence 
of Lk on Mt, breaks down. The force of his opposition is felt only 
as a protest against the method of determining S. 

Both Hawkins and Harnack divided the Q parallels into classes 
by the word-counting method to avoid subjectivity of judgment. 
A striking result is that both throw doubt on three sections two of 
which Wernle had included as "certainly" (sicker) from S. Harnack 
places by themselves as doubtful the two parables of the Slighted 
Invitation 2 and Entrusted Funds (Mt 25:14-29=Lk 19:12-26), 
Hawkins places the latter in his Class B and groups the Slighted 
Invitation and the saying on the Effect of the Baptist's Preaching 
(Mt 21:31 f.=Lk 7:29 f.) under Class C! 

We have already seen why Mt and Lk diverge widely in their 
transcription of the Slighted Invitation. Any standard of measure- 
ment beyond the merely mechanical one of word-counting would 
give a similar result in the case of the Entrusted Funds. Wernle and 
Harnack are also clearly right in including the Effects of the Bap- 
tist's Preaching as true Q material in spite of verbal differences 
obviously arising from difference of setting. A similar instance is 
the saying on Thrones of Judgment, quite recast by Mt in 19:28, 
but surely the same saying as Lk 22:28-30. In short, some account 
must be taken of motives and methods affecting our two transcribers, 
which make them, each in his own way, something more than mere 
copyists. Mt in particular shows by his treatment of Mk that he 
can use on occasion the broadest freedom of recasting and relocation. 
It is due to overemphasis of the mechanical side in transcription, 
with failure to appreciate the liberties of recasting and supplementa- 
tion which Mt and Lk have allowed themselves, liberties which at 
the same time can be checked and discounted by study of their re- 
spective motives and methods, that unnecessary difficulties have 

2 Above, p. 65 f. 



THE EXTENT OF Q 95 

been thrown in the way of the reconstruction of S. In particular 
we must lay it to this cause that Streeter feels obliged to assume a 
complete new document M in addition to the element N (treated 
separately by Streeter) and to Mk and S, in order to account for 
the wider variations of Mt from Lk in the Q material. 3 

Allen's objection, then, to the standard of measurement is partly 
justified. The expectation that in utilizing documents writers who 
stand in such relation to their sources as Mt and Lk will invariably 
make a verbally coincident transcript is not justified. These writers 
stand too near the period of dependence on living oral tradition to 
act as mere copyists. There will indeed be enough verbal transcrip- 
tion where any document of considerable extent is utilized to enable 
the critic in cases of independent parallelism to prove, as Wernle, 
Harnack, and Hawkins have proved, that the parallelism is due to the 
use of a common document S. 4 But the parallelism will not be equally 
close in all parts for the reasons illustrated in Mt's treatment of Mk. 

Certain kinds of change will indeed be approximately uniform in 
all parts, as when both Mt and Lk make changes throughout for the 
improvement of style and rhetorical form, not infrequently coinciding 
in some small correction. But changes affecting the substance do 
not occur in all parts alike. They occur only in such passages as 
awaken the special interests of the transcribers. Moreover, the tran- 
scribers' motives being diverse, changes will be limited to groups 
of passages of a certain kind, Mt interposing at one point, Lk at 
another. 

Again, it is a universally recognized phenomenon that the tran- 
scriptional changes affect narrative more than discourse, so that as 
a rule Mt and Lk show less divergence in their Q material than their 
Mk material. This may be in part because of the reverence felt for 
all words of Jesus even when reported at second hand; in part it is due 
also to the fact that both transcribers use S for the sake of its teaching 
material, and, finding this, have less motive for change. Mk, who 
uses to some extent the same material, makes far greater change, 
because his object is different. Again relocation, especially of short 
sections, will lead to a larger relative amount of verbal change. 

As we have seen, and as Wernle had observed in more than one 
connection, parable is to be classed with narrative rather than with dis- 
course in the degree of exemption from transcriptional change. The 
reason is simple. Parable, from its very nature as illustrative fiction, 
suggests freedom of adaptation to the lesson in view. To it applies the 
Synagogue rule which gives large liberty to haggada ("narrative"), 

8 See Appended Note VIII. 

4 See Burkitt's caution against "vague talk about the marvellous achievements 
of Oriental memories" (GHTr, p. 145). 



96 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

as against halacha ("walk," i.e., ethics, conduct of life), for only 
"commandments" require the maximum of precision and author- 
ity. In the case of anecdote or parable, the lesson in view being 
differently apprehended by different catechists, changes are made 
accordingly; usually (for the parables) in the direction of allegoriza- 
tion, or moralizing extension. An example of the Matthean use of 
both has already been furnished within the limits of a single parable, 
that of the Slighted Invitation. 5 We shall see reason presently to 
hold that the Matthean parables and smaller supplements not de- 
rived from Mk or S may often be ascribed to Mt's own rabbinic or 
catechetic resources, which of course include "things new and old" 
from both Synagogue and Church. 

Allen's plea for oral tradition has, therefore, a certain validity 
against Harnack and Hawkins. In the period of Mt and Lk we must 
look for a partial survival of oral tradition side by side with use of 
S and Mk. Indeed the very familiarity of Mt and Lk with these 
written sources will tend to make their citations freer than otherwise. 
Who does not use greater freedom in transcribing a document whose 
contents are very familiar than one to which he is an entire stranger? 

Our designation for oral tradition in Mt will be 0, but it should 
be clearly understood that the symbol does not exclude non-Christian 
material. In application we must use greater freedom than Streeter, 
who in his OS article on "The Original Extent of Q" (VI, pp. 196- 
201) justly classes the two parables of the Slighted Invitation and 
the Entrusted Funds as Q. Mt has indeed "turned the (former) 
parable into allegory." It is also true that he "has appended as if it 
were part of the same parable 22:11-14, the Man without a Wed- 
ding Garment." But the attempt to connect this supplement with 
S, conjecturing reasons why it might have been omitted by Lk, is 
futile. As we have shown, the supplement merely attaches (very 
incongruously, but from characteristically Matthean motives) one of 
the commonplaces of rabbinic teaching credibly ascribed to Johanan 
ben Zacchai. Again, Streeter rightly rejects Harnack's attempt to 
find a combination of "two separate parables" in the Lukan form 
of the parable of the Entrusted Funds. He admits allegorization by 
Lk, 6 but shrinks from Wernle's frank recognition that Lk uses as 
much freedom as Mt or the Ev. Naz. in such "improvements." 

In 19:11 Lk clearly states the lesson he finds in the parable. It is 
not that suggested by the parable itself. Why, then, should the 
critic throw upon Jesus responsibility for the present confused mix- 
ture of motives, rather than hold Lk responsible for "retelling a well- 
known incident in the life of Archelaus in such a way as to make (the 

5 Above, p. 65 f . 

6 See his footnote on p. 199. 



THE EXTENT OF Q 97 

parable) point a double moral"? Caution in treating as unauthentic 
any material transmitted by our evangelists is commendable, but 
conservatism may be carried to the extent of defeating its own ends. 
In treating such parables as the Slighted Invitation and the En- 
trusted Funds application may better be made of the principle none 
has better expressed than Streeter himself. (OS, p. 197) : 

It seems not unreasonable to surmise that an editor would feel justified 
in taking more liberties with a parable than with a "commandment" of 
the Master, since its bearing lay not in its precise wording but in its gen- 
eral effect, and again more liberties than with the account of an action 
or scene in His life, drawn from Mk, since the scene or action of the parable 
was not supposed to be the description of an actual occurrence, and there- 
fore to vary the details was not to distort history. Indeed this is not mere 
surmise, for Mt and Lk reproduce the Parables of the Sower and the 
Wicked Husbandmen with much less exactitude than they do such other 
utterances of our Lord as are given by Mk. 

Comparison of Mt's method will show that we should extend the 
principle still further. Under the head of (1) Editorial allegorization 
(R) we must place the rewriting by Mt of the Mk parable of the 
Patient Husbandman (Mk 4:26-29). Irf the corresponding position 
of Mt 13 :24-30 this becomes the parable of the Tares in the Wheat, 
presenting by means of its incongruous trait of the "enemy sowing ' l 

tares" Mt's favorite moral of Judgment-sifting (cf. Mt 3:12=Lk 
3:17 and Johanan ben Zacchai on Eccl. 9:8), in particular his habit- 
ual warning against the teachers of dw/ua. But (2) we must further 
add under the designation O material such as Mt's general supple- 
ment to his last great discourse, pointing the moral of all the teach- 
ings. It is his closing description of the Last Judgment (25:31-46), 
improperly called the "parable" of the Sheep and the Goats because 
of a single incidental comparison. Even Allen (ICC, p. 266) admits 
that "this splendid ending of the long discourse (Mt 24 f.) reads 
like a Christian homily." It reads so because it is nothing else. Mt 
shows his idea of "the things which Jesus commanded" by composing 
as their climax a Christian homily on Judgment to Come of the type 
to be heard in many a Christian "synagogue" at the close of the 
first century (cf. Jas. 2:2 and 5:1-8). Study of what Mt rewrites and 
supplements in Mk is the best guide to his rewriting and supplementa- 
tion of S; but study of his supplements, allegorizing changes, and 
moralizing applications at the close of each of the four preceding 
great Discourses should also guide our judgment in the case of the 
fifth and last. Oral tradition (including Synagogue homilies) sup- 
plies something of these supplementary exhortations to "good works" 
in view of coming reward or penalty; but motive, interest, and phrase- 



98 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

ology alike point to our canonical evangelist himself as chief con- 
tributor. 

What, then, are the limits of rewording and supplementation of 
discourses of Jesus by Mt and Lk? On this question we must observe 
the comment of Hawkins above cited based on the proleptic employ- 
ments by Mt of Mk material. These anticipated passages show 
such mental mastery of the contents of Mk as would be impossible for 
an ancient writer unable to consult an index "unless he knew his 
material practically by heart." Undoubtedly he did. To Mt cer- 
tainly, perhaps also to Lk, the contents of Mk and S were "known 
by heart," and could therefore be introduced at any point, with what- 
ever verbal modification seemed advisable. 

The weakness of any mere word-counting method for determining 
the extent of Q comes out very clearly when thus appraised. A wiser 
valuation of it is expressed in Burkitt's GHTr, where in the chap- 
ter on "The Teaching of Jesus Christ" (V, pp. 143-183) he uses the 
"doubly attested sayings" (i.e., not Q but Mk plus S) to show that 
coincidence of wording was not regarded as essential to true witness 
in apostolic times, and need not be today. The portrait of Jesus is 
only marred when we introduce a standard devised to make the 
least possible concession from former claims of verbal inerrancy for 
our evangelists: 

The aim of the early Christians was practical; they aimed at making 
saints, not historians. The memory of Jesus survived among His servants, 
His presence was still felt in their midst, and we must be prepared before- 
hand to find that a clear distinction was not always drawn between 
what He would have said and what He really did say. "The laborer is 
worthy of his hire" (or "of his food") said Jesus, according to Mt and 
Lk; with S. Paul this has become the formal statement that the Lord 
ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel (I 
Cor. 9:14) an example which clearly shews how sayings detached from 
a historical context harden into rules from which most of the distinctive 
phraseology of the speaker disappears. Another instance of the same kind 
is to be found in the Sayings about Divorce. In Mk 10:2-12 we have the 
whole story in its historical setting, and the saying of the Lord takes its 
color from the events of the age and the circumstances of the place where 
the saying was uttered. In Lk 16:18 we have much the same principle of 
conduct laid down, but the historical setting is gone: it belongs to Christian 
Ethics rather than to our Lord's Biography. 

The distinction is the same to which we have drawn attention as 
current already in Papias' time between "gnomic" and "biographic" 
order. But the most important feature of Burkitt's observation 
lies in his correction of the disposition to undervalue coincidence in 
substance in comparison with coincidence which is merely verbal. 



THE EXTENT OF Q 99 

Our evangelists were justly conscious of being to some extent compe- 
tent to tell what Jesus would have said, in addition to what he ac- 
tually did say, and their report must be judged accordingly. The 
"double attestation material" adduced by Burkitt in a series of 
logia from Mk and S, of which the first two are Mk 3:4 (copied in 
Lk 6:19) = Lk 14:5 f. (compare Mt 12:11) and Mk 3:22-26=Lk 
11:15-18 (compare the non-Markan portions of Mt 12:24-26), shows 
clearly enough the difference of design between S and Mk, a cate- 
chetic and a biographic compilation. Neither word-counting nor 
contextual position furnishes an adequate standard for determining 
the extent of Q if this distinction be ignored. 

We must defer for a little our criticism of Streeter's answer to the 
question why Mt contains so relatively few of the "story-parables" 
of Lk in order to consider this scholar's treatment of another reserva- 
tion of Harnack and Hawkins in their determination of the extent 
of Q. Both of these again list as very doubtful the Effect of the 
Baptist's Preaching (Mt 21:31b, 32=Lk 7:29 f.). The reason ap- 
pears to be, partly, as before, insufficient agreement in language, 
but mainly difference in location. Hawkins himself, however, appears 
to have scruples about excluding this passage (cf. "f" on pp. 126 
and 136), while Streeter, on grounds of^Lukan collocation, declares 
Lk 6:20-7:35 to be "solid Q, with the one short interpolation, the 
Widow of Nain, 7:11-17." This time, clearly, the criterion to be 
tested is that of order. To what extent can we rely upon the prin- 
ciple enunciated by Burkitt and Streeter against Harnack, that "It is 
Lk rather than Mt who preserves the original order of his authorities, 
and his order is to be presumed as Q's (i.e., S's) order unless for some 
special reason the contrary appears in some particular instance"? 

The general demonstration of this proposition in Streeter's essay 
"On the Original Order of Q" (OS, pp. 141-164) is convincing. 
Mt's complete reallocation of the series of Mighty Works which 
forms the A division of Book II proves that this evangelist felt no 
scruples whatever about changes of order in Markan narrative. 
Moreover his motive was not better chronological sequence, but 
simple edification, a strong indication that Mt had not yet fully 
emerged from the period of oral preaching to which Papias refers. 
Of course if we go back far enough we shall undoubtedly reach a 
stage in the development of the record where the Q material stood 
in this disjointed sequence. But the question before us is not: Which 
of our two informants, Mt or Lk, shows the apostolic order and which 
is responsible for the dislocation? The question is: To what extent, 
and on what principle, has either of the two deviated from the non- 
apostolic source S in this respect? In the case of Mt the effort to 
produce a complete and "orderly" compend of the teachings has 



100 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

entailed complete rearrangement of Markan narrative in the A 
division of Book II. It has also entailed rearrangement to even 
greater extent of the order of teaching material, whether from Mk or 
Q, to build up the five great discourses. For Mt has not scrupled 
to rearrange sections when, as in I, B, he made up the discourse 
from a single document. Lk's procedure as respects Mk was different. 
He interjects his Mk material in practically unaltered sequence 
in three considerable blocks. His Q material falls of course into the 
alternate blocks. Burkitt, followed by Hawkins and Stree'ter, infers 
from this general method that the Q blocks are left (with some 
exceptions) in the order of S. The inference is not warranted. Mk 
was a 8irmti<ns 17 Xex0ei>Tcov ij irpaxd&Tuv like Lk's own. Even if Pe- 
trine authority did not weigh unduly upon an evangelist who seems 
to take Kara in the broader sense when considering Mk's rela- 
tion to Peter, there was every reason why Lk should leave the order 
of Mk's narrative comparatively unchanged. But S was not a 
narrative (5^7770-15) in any such sense as Mk. Its object, as critics 
agree, was chiefly didactic. It aimed to put together the teachings. 
Have we any reason then to assume that Lk made no attempt to 
improve upon the order of S? Is it not indeed more probable that 
Lk's predecessor, who compiled this S, had already rearranged the 
mass of current anecdotes still largely in oral form to suit his ideas 
of order? In short, we stand, once more, before the alternative of 
primitive conditions of "detached sayings and groups of sayings" 
in oral tradition or the developed conditions represented by our 
canonical Gospels. How far had S progressed toward the literary 
form when utilized in Greek dress by our two later evangelists? 

Instead of starting with the proposition: "A mere Spruchsammlung 
((rvvTd&s T&V Xo7tcoi>) cannot have had an order of any kind" we 
should disregard what Papias had to say about a different writing, 
and set ourselves to the task of ascertaining the actual order of S, re- 
membering that there are two types of order, represented respectively 
by Mt and Lk, the gnomic and the biographic; and that the Gospel 
of Mk shows examples of both; for its narratives (as the Elder cor- 
rectly maintained) are put together irpos r&s xpelas, while its dis- 
courses (as clearly shown by their expansions in Mt II, B; III, B; 
IV, B; and V, B) represent an inchoate form of gnomic aggluti- 
nation. This arrangement aims at convenience of religious instruction; 
sometimes it displays the typical rabbinic style of collocation ad 
vocem. If the precedent of Mk has any value we should expect Q 
(and consequently S) to show examples of both kinds of agglutination. 

We have taken as an example of disagreement of the critics on 
this question of the value of collocation for determining the extent 
of Q the section on Effects of the Baptist's Preaching (Mt 21 :31b f . 



THE EXTENT OF Q 101 

= Lk 7:29 f.). Wernle, most determined advocate of the Spruch- 
sammlung theory, ignores this passage entirely, while Harnack and 
Hawkins rank it as B or C; but Burkitt at least sees no objection 
to it on the score of order, for in his chapter on "The Gospel in Mt 
and in Lk" (GHTr, pp. 184-217), after pointing out the freedom of 
Mt in recasting and supplementing the language of Mk, he con- 
tinues with the following judicious characterization of Mt's method 
as regards order (p. 187) : 

I do not think that Mt aimed at being a Chronicler. This statement 
would not be true of all the evangelists. Mk and Lk are, in a way, Chron- 
iclers; that is, a very great part of their intention is to tell the story of 
the events more or less as they came to pass. With Mt the case is different. 7 
He is not especially concerned to paint the most lifelike picture possible 
of Jesus of Nazareth as He walked the earth in what was, even when Mt 
wrote, a past age. His aim rather is to shew forth the real significance of 
One who had come in the fulness of time, fulfilling the ancient words of 
prophecy. 

Another object of Mt, less generally appreciated than this, we 
have found to be at least equally significant for the criticism of this 
Gospel the completion of Mk by adding the teachings arranged 
in gnomic order. But this order demanded drastic reallocation of 
the teaching material, whether Mk or S, a reallocation which Mt 
had no hesitation in effecting. Many before him may well have 
followed the same course with general approval. Thus Burkitt 
properly seconds Wellhausen's example of precanonical allocations 
on p. 52 of his Ev. Lucae. 

Wellhausen points out that the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10: 
29 ff., appended to the Great Commandment, Mk 12:32-34=Lk 10:25- 
28) is strictly speaking an answer to the question, "Whose neighbor am 
I?", 8 not to "Who is my neighbor?" . . . In either case the inconsequence 
remains. Wellhausen considers that the answer of the scribe and the Par- 
able are really separate stories, which have been joined together by the 
Evangelist. The Parable has a Samaritan hero, consequently the Evan- 
gelist has placed the whole compilation in the Samaritan section of his 
Gospel; but the Lawyer who answers so well at first is only the scribe of 
Mk 12:30 ff. transferred to an earlier place, like the Sermon at Nazareth 
in Lk4. 

It is indeed quite evident both that someone in the Lukan line of 
transmission has effected in both these cases a different collocation 

7 In view of Prof. Burkitt's clear appreciation of the very distinction made by 
Papias it is surprising that he should so misapply what Papias has to say about 
the Matthean <nWais TUV \oylwv as to refer it to a collection of Old Testament 
testimonia. 

8 Better "Who is the best interpreter of the Law?" Cf. Jas. 3:13. 



102 



STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



than Mk's, and (seemingly) for catechetic purposes. But to leap at 
once to the conclusion that Mk's order is historical, and that Lk, 
the evangelist whom our English critics are so keen to point out 
"keeps his Mk material in the original order where possible" is 
something of a sault perilkux. To this we must return; but first let 
us consider the example originally adopted, diversely valued as it 
is by the critics. The two methods of allocation will be best illus- 
trated if we place Mt and Lk side by side, placing Lk as before in the 
left-hand column because 

the actual fact of the dislocation of Mk's order by Mt justifies us in paying 
very little attention to the order in which we find Sayings of Jesus grouped 
in Mt's Gospel (GHTr, p. 198): 



Lk7:29f. 

And all the people when they 
heard it and the publicans justified 
God, for they had been baptized with 
the baptism of John. But the Phari- 
sees and the lawyers set at naught 
God's counsel in their case, for they 
had not been baptized by him. 



Mt21:31bf. 

Jesus saith to them: Verily I say 
unto you, The publicans and harlots 
go into the kingdom of God before 
you. For John came unto you bring- 
ing justification, and the publicans 
and harlots believed on him, but 
ye, when ye saw it did not even 
repent yourselves afterwards to be- 
lieve on him. 



The treatment of the teaching of this Q passage in Lk is typical of 
the recasting which becomes unavoidable when passing from the 
gnomic to the biographic style of composition. Lk (or some pred- 
ecessor) does with it precisely what Mk does with the Q discourse 
on the Baptism of John (Mt 11:2 ff. = Lk 7:18 ff.) in drawing from 
it his description of the Baptist's situation, garb, and diet (Mk 
1:7 f.). We have three reasons for recognizing that in this case Mt's 
form is nearer the original, so far as text is concerned. (1) This is 
one of only four cases in his Gospel in which Mt retains unaltered 
(for reasons of sense) "the kingdom of God" instead of changing to 
"kingdom of heaven." (2) The collocation with the parable of The 
Repentant Younger Son is surely correct. This also, in the abbre- 
viated form characteristic of the Matthean parable, will be from the 
same source. (3) The language, Semitic to the verge of unintelli- 
gibility (came to you "in a way," i.e., "to bring," or "way" = 
tanfc=mode of religious teaching; "righteousness," i.e., "acquittal 
in the judgment," but cf. Lk "justified God") is Mattheanized, 
whereas in the Lukan form it is Lukanized (cf. HS, p. 17). But the 
magnet which has drawn the whole section Mt 21 :28-32 to its pres- 
ent position is unmistakable. Mt as usual depends on Mk, who 
relates the whole debate in Mk ll:27-33> whether correctly or not, 



THE EXTENT OF Q 103 

as a sequel to the Purging of the Temple. Lk (or some predecessor) 
perceives its close relation to Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees 
for turning a deaf ear to John. Biographic order therefore demanded 
that it be placed in the Galilean setting. The homiletic (gnomic) 
order followed by Mk placed the whole denunciation in Jesus' last 
public utterance. Mt as usual follows Mk. If only Mk's order were 
historically reliable! But that is exactly what ancient and modern 
criticism alike declare it is not. It is a collection of "sayings and 
doings" arranged in such order as homiletic edification required. 
Which order was that of S? We cannot treat either as apostolic 
and authoritative. We must do as all those in search of a biography 
have done before us since Mk first came into circulation make 
such a diegesis as we are able by combination of Q and Mk. All we 
have to guide us is two different types of rearrangement. 

Our criticism of the verbal and contextual standard of measure- 
ment for the extent of Q has considerably simplified the problem. 
All of the group classed as dubious by Harnack now take their place 
with the undisputed. All from Hawkins' Class C that the author 
himself deems worthy of serious consideration do the same with the 
exception of two brief logia. The saying on Savorless Salt (Mt 5:13 
= Lk 14:34 f.) must be classed as "triple-tradition" (i.e., Markan) 
material, since it occurs also in Mk 9 :50. In that case it is not prop- 
erly part of Q, though it may very well be from S, where it is placed 
by Burkitt along with other "doubly attested" material. Sir John's 
footnote ad loc. indicates his agreement with this verdict. The same 
judgment applies to the other logion "Giving Help on the Sabbath" 
(Mt 12:10 f. = Lk 14:2 f., 5). This Burkitt (GHTr, p. 148) places first 
in his list of "doubly attested" sayings. Once more we have probable 
derivation from S, though improper classification as Q. 

Nothing remains of Class C save four parallels (?) whose real 
function appears to be a reductio ad absurdum of the verbal-agree- 
ment standard from Mt's Preamble (chh. 1-2 compared with Lk 
1-3). Of these Hawkins himself observes that they "may be omitted 
from further consideration, as being quite unlikely to have been 
in any degree grounded on Q." Since no one of the sixteen recon- 
structors of S tabulated by Moffatt includes them, the reader can 
only ask why Sir John introduces them at all. The reason appears 
in the note accompanying the last of the Class C passages we have to 
consider. Sir John also classes as a possible Q parallel (C, 5) "Rec- 
ompense for alms, or for hospitality" comparing Mt 6:3 f. with 
Lk 14:13 f., but with the comment "But the resemblances are very- 
slight, and the passages are only inserted in order not to omit alto- 
gether any verbal parallel suggested in (Rushbrook's) Synopticon." 
The standard of verbal identity for determining the extent of Q 



104 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

may demonstrate (in this case somewhat superfluously) the objectivity 
of the critic, but when mechanically applied (as where in No. 1 
thirteen names in the Genealogy of Jesus are counted as "coinci- 
dences of language" between Q mt and Q lk ) the result is mere absurd- 
ity. 

The general outcome of OS. in the attempt to define the relation 
of Mt to Q is that Mt in comparison with Lk stands much nearer to 
Mk. His text is generally closer than Lk's to the original when he 
transcribes sections of Q, but is also much more apt to be conflated 
with Mk. As regards order Mt again follows the example of Mk. 
He constructs discourses by free agglutination, rearrangement, 
supplementation, drawing from both Mk and S. He also constructs 
groups of anecdotes according to his own conception of an effective 
order. In these also Mk and S are intertwined. I, B consists of a 
discourse formed from Q material rearranged and stripped of the 
narrative introductions found in Lk; III, A consists almost wholly 
of Q material presented in narrative form. Q, therefore, does repre- 
sent a single real document S, but for the nature and structure of 
S there must be further comparison of Lukan with Matthean employ- 
ment. In particular a hearing must be given to the representative 
of another school of criticism which questions the assumption that 
S was "not a gospel," accounting otherwise for the predominance 
of teaching material in the Q extracts which survive. If the two 
Weiss', father and son, Burkitt, Bartlet and the present writer are 
not deceived S, when in the hands of Mt and Lk, if not of Mk also, 
had already advanced beyond the stage of the mere structureless 
collection of "sayings and doings of the Lord" toward that of the 
biographic record, connecting agglutinated discourses by a slender 
thread of narrative outline. This criticism of the order of Q must 
be the subject of a new chapter. 



CHAPTER VIII 
MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 

IT would be easy at this point to transgress the proper limits of 
Studies in Mt to enter the domain of Studies in the Synoptic Prob- 
lem. A chapter on the Contents of S would logically follow that of 
the Extent of Q if the object in view were determination of the nature 
and structure of the Second Source. But our line of approach to this 
ulterior problem demands limitation for the present to Mt. 

The uniform conclusion of contributors to OS points to Lk rather 
than Mt as more nearly reflecting both character and contents of 
S. Mt stands in much closer relation to Mk, whether conflation of 
individual passages be considered, or proportionate mass of incorpo- 
ration. Lk incorporates little more than half of Mk, Mt practically 
the whole. Lk interjects his blocks of Mk almost without change of 
order, Mt interweaves small bits of Mk throughout his Gospel and in 
chh. 4-14 makes havoc of Mk's order. Lk cancels the entire section 
of Mk on Jesus in Gentile regions (Mk 6:45-8:26), preferring his 
own more historical account in Acts of the extension of the gospel 
to the Gentiles. Mt corrects the error by a few minute changes in 
Mk's text to indicate that Jesus had never transgressed his own 
rule "Go not into any way of the Gentiles." Lk almost entirely 
supersedes Mk's Passion story by another of unknown origin, in 
many respects historically superior. Mt clings closer than ever to 
Mk, making no changes of order and adding nothing of value. His 
rare and brief supplements are of a highly apocryphal character 
dominated by anti-Pharisaic polemic x and quite impossible to as- 
sociate with S. 

All this raises in acute form the question of the character and 
contents of S. But it shows still more clearly that the question can 
only be answered after such study of sources and editorial methods 
of Lk as we have just applied to those of Mt. Such study has been 
given by several of the contributors to OS, and by Burkitt, as well 
as by the German critics already mentioned. In particular the ques- 
tion of Lk's order in the Q passages has been discussed by the pres- 
ent writer also in a series of articles in the JBL (XXXIV-XXXVII, 
1915-1917) under the title "The 'Order' of the Lukan 'Interpola- 
tions. ' " This study led to the conviction that Lk employs in the 

x See e.g., Mt 27:24 f., 62-66; 28:11-15. 

105 



106 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

make-up of these "interpolations" another non-Markan source 
besides S, for which the designation L has been commonly employed 
since the publication in 1891 of P. Feme's Vorkanonische Ueberlie- 
ferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte. Streeter's 
restatement of the theory of L has brought it recently into new 
prominence. Now if in addition to S Luke has mingled L factors in 
his blocks of non-Markan material, whether L was already combined 
with S or conflated with it by Lk himself, a new factor of great im- 
portance will be added to the problem. This will be still further 
complicatd by the question what relation L will have borne, if any, 
to Mk. No wonder critics find it hard to reach a unanimous verdict 
if this be so, and Lk's reference to "many" predecessors in his 
work of drawing up a narrative (Sii^o-is) of the things concerning 
Jesus suggests at least one "narrative" in addition to Mk and S. 
Under these circumstances our Studies in Mt must leave discussion 
of Lk's sources and editorial methods to others. The theory of L is 
discussed in recent commentaries such as Preuschen's (1912), Loisy's 
(1920), and B. S. Easton's (1926). It comes more into the foreground 
in -critical studies such as Wellhausen's Evangelium Lucae (1904), 
B. Weiss' Quellen des Lk-evangelium' s (1908), and Vincent Taylor's 
Behind the Third Gospel, a Study of the Proto-Lk Hypothesis (1926), 
not to mention the four Btr. of Harnack. 

On the other hand Studies in Mt cannot disregard the care- 
ful observations of Burkitt's GHTr, nor those of Hawkins, Streeter, 
and Vernon Bartlet in OS comparing redactional methods of Mt and 
Lk. For, as between Q, S, and L, the issue turns primarily on these 
methods. 

Professor Bartlet, with many others, holds to a proto-Lk theory. 
In his view the document S, when it came into the hands of Lk, had 
already been expanded by the addition of new narratives such as 
the Widow of Nain, and many "story" parables. But the char- 
acteristics of this L 2 document are too intensely Jewish to permit 
its being ascribed to the Gentile Lk. Hence the dubious expedient 
of supposing it. to have been a "private" compilation made for Lk's 
benefit at Caesarea perhaps by "Philip the evangelist," which Lk 
took over without change of its Semitic style. 

The subject of omissions by Mt from S is systematically discussed 
by Hawkins on p. 122 f. of OS. In answer to the question whether 
S contained "introductions" to its sayings of Jesus he points out 
(i) that "some sayings certainly had them, inasmuch as "in two 

2 Bartlet uses the designation S (Special Source). The singularity is unfor- 
tunate in view of the general employment of L by so many who take a similar 
view. My own employment of S for the Second Source can only be with apologies 
to Prof. Bartlet, but is perhaps excusable in the interest of clarity. 



MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 107 

or three instances Mt and Lk retain sayings and introductions to- 
gether." Again: 

(ii) No such decided inference can be drawn as to the sayings for which 
we find introductions supplied by Lk only, as in 11:1-13, 37-52; 12:13-34; 
13:23-27; 15:1-7; 17:20-27 and 34, 35, 37, while only the sayings con- 
tained in those passages are given by Mt in one or other of his large bodies 
of discourse with more or less appropriateness to its general subject. It 
is easy to say with Loisy and others that Lk "readily invents the surround- 
ings of the discourses that he repeats"; and it may be admitted that his 
desire to place things as far as possible "in order" may have caused him 
sometimes to adopt without sufficient authority historical occasions which 
seemed to him suitable for the separate sayings which he wished to locate 
somewhere. But judging from the evidence before us in the two Gospels, 
I cannot think that this chronological tendency in Lk was nearly so strong 
and effective as the homiletical tendency in Mt to group sayings according 
to their subjects, and so according to their convenience for teachers. And 
therefore it seems to me probable that either most or all of the introduc- 
tions above referred to were drawn with the sayings from Q by Lk, while 
Mt dropped them out; and also that the exclamations or questions which 
interrupt discourses in Lk 11:45; 12:41; 17:37a (and possibly in 19:25) 
were retained from Q by Lk, and not added by him. 

This statement of the case forms part of Sir John's discussion of 
the question of the "form" of S. It is offset under (iii) by instances 
tending to show (against Weiss) "that a very large proportion of 
sayings stood without them" in S. 

I gratefully accept the endorsement by Professor Vernon Bartlet 
(OS, XI, p. 361) of my protest against the circuitous reasoning 
which assumes on the basis of Mt and traditions attaching to it 
that S was a mere Spruchsammlung or "loose aggregation of discon- 
nected logia." In B. Weiss' QL will be found the most systematic 
argument for S p and S mk , that is, such narrative material in S as 
has filtered down through Mk and L and thus escapes recognition 
by the school of critics who are guided in their view of S by the 
method favored by Mt rather than the Lukan. 

Our assumption is that S was a Redesammlung rather than a mere 
Spruchsammlung, thus lending itself to development along either 
line, whether biographic (in Hawkins' terminology "chronological"), 
or gnomic (Hawkins' "homiletic"). Mt's combination of S with Mk 
aggregates the "doings" (TrpaxOevra) into masses of condensed nar- 
rative introductory to the five similarly massed bodies of "say- 
ings" (\exdevra), the resultant work terminating with an Epilogue 
indispensable to this form of composition. The Epilogue is nat- 
urally based on Mk. By this method, kindred to that employed 
in the talmudic treatise of the Sayings of the Fathers (Pirke Abotti), 



108 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

narrative has relatively little place for its own sake. Papias' language 
suggests the designation "syntactic," but we have preferred to call 
Mt's the "gnomic" method. 

Lk has more sense of the value of history. His predecessor L (if 
we may forestall demonstration) had already shown similar apprecia- 
tion by copious expansion of the biographic content of S, whether 
with or without influence from Mk. Lk's term for a gospel writing 
of this kind, including his own work, is a "narrative" (Sirens) . 
Obviously its tendency will be the opposite from Mt's in the use of 
S. We may expect in Lk (and even more in L) expansion on the side 
of narrative and "story" parable. Every element S could furnish 
of the "doings" will be exploited in this interest, reversing com- 
pletely the tendency of Mt toward the gnomic method and ideal, 
of the rabbis. 

Endorsement of Sir John's criticism of Wernle's and Loisy's ex- 
treme Spruchsammlung theory, a criticism which surely proves that 
"Lk does not invent the surroundings of the discourses that he 
repeats," would be superfluous, our judgment being already on record 
from long before. 3 Two instances should suffice to prove real and 
intentional omission on the part of Mt. The first is Lk's introduc- 
tion to the Q discourse on Abiding Wealth (Lk 12:13-21), omitted 
by Mt when taking up the discourse into his expanded form of the 
discourse on Filial Righteousness in 6:19-21, 24-34. In my SM 
(pp. 69 if.) it was shown that the parable of the Rich Fool (Solomon 
of Eccl. 2:4-11), who depends on "store-chambers and barns" for 
his wealth, cannot be detached from the sequel describing the fowls 
of the air, who have "neither store-chambers nor barns," and the 
lilies of the field, whose glory surpasses the robes of "Solomon." 
Lk 12:13-21 must therefore be classed as S p . 

In his QL (p. 73) B. Weiss gives a second instance. Mt's same 
Sermon embodies Jesus' teaching on Prayer (Mt 6:7-13; 7:7-11), 
omitting both the preliminary narrative setting (Lk 11:1) and the 
parable of the Importunate Friend (11:5-8) which follows. But in 
the Q teaching as incorporated by both witnesses (Mt 7:7-ll = Lk 
11:9-13) the phrase appears "Knock, and it shall be opened unto 
you." The phrase is used with apparent reference to the knocking 
of the importunate friend in the omitted parable. Lk 11:1, 5-8 
again must be classed as S p . 

It need not follow that the occasions omitted by Mt were in point 
of historical fact the actual occasions on which the discourses were 
delivered. But it does clearly appear that Lk was not the first to 
arrange the teaching material in biographic order a fact implied 
by his preface and that Mt's tendency to abbreviate Markan 

3 SM, 1901, pp. 68 ff. 



MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 109 

narrative extended to the "story-parable" as well. Mt was, indeed, 
compelled to strip the discourses on Abiding Wealth and on Prayer 
of their narrative occasion to fit them into his Discourse on Right- 
eousness. But another location could have been found for the two 
parables had he valued them. Inferences, therefore as to the gnomic 
form of S based upon the non-appearance of Story parables in Mt are 
invalid. The attempted distinction between the "short parable" 
as distinctive of Mt and the "story parable" as distinctive of Lk has 
no value beyond establishing what we already knew, viz., that the 
gnomic type of compilation abbreviates narrative, and that "story- 
parable" belongs, for our evangelists, under the head of "narrative." 
Mt (and Mt's possible predecessors) can extend and supplement 
freely for purposes of allegorical application when they consider 
that occasion requires, that is, when the lesson in view calls for special 
emphasis. Lk (and Lk's unknown predecessors) can also extend and 
supplement freely in support of the lesson as they understand it. 
There is no reliable determining who is responsible for the longer or 
shorter form of a given Q parable, whether Mt or Lk or S, without 
knowledge of the particular bent and interest of each. In Lk (and 
L also, if an L be admitted) the tendency was toward narrative ex- 
pansion, on how good authority only internal evidence can show. As 
we shall see, it is fortunately possible to determine in some degree at 
least the particular bent and interest of R mt . 

We have then, good reason to believe that the non-appearance of 
such story-parables as the Importunate Friend and Importunate 
Widow in Mt's form of the Discourse on Prayer is not due to their 
absence from S. In like manner, for all their non-appearance in Mt, 
the parables of the Cheating Steward and the Rich Man and Lazarus 
may perfectly well have been attached to the S discourse on Treasure 
in Heaven, a discourse which appears to have been prefaced in S 
by the omitted parable of the Rich Fool (Lk 12:13-21; 16:1-9, 19-25). 
Nevertheless we can not infer that Mt would omit from his setting 
of the Discourse on the Baptist such an anecdote as the Raising of 
the Widow's Son at Nain (Lk 7:11-17), because Mt has occasion 
for material of this kind in ch. 9. The difference is patent. The 
anecdote of the Widow's Son justifies the statement "the dead are 
raised up" in Jesus' reference to the present fulfilment of the proph- 
ecies of the Consolation of Israel, a statement, which Lk (or L) 
wrongly takes in the literal sense. The anecdote of the Penitent 
Harlot has a similar purpose, attached after the discourse by Lk in 
7:36-50, for it admirably illustrates the clause "eateth with . . . 
sinners." It is possible to suppose that Mt deliberately discarded 
this most beautiful and touching of all the anecdotes of Jesus' mes- 
sage of forgiveness, because we know that in Eusebius' time not 



110 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

one of our canonical evangelists had admitted its companion story, 
the Woman taken in Adultery, preserved only in Papias and the 
Ev. Hebr. in Eusebius' time, and because Mt in addition discarded 
another anecdote of woman's piety of similar pathos contained (at 
least according to all surviving texts) in Mk 12:41-44. But it is very 
difficult to suppose that Mt purposely left out the Raising of the 
Widow's Son. It is indeed supposable that Mt understood better 
than Lk the symbolic sense of the prophecy of the raising to life of 
Jehovah's dead people, used in Jesus' message to John, and so might 
disregard Lk's connection for the anecdote. But he would hardly 
resort to the kind of duplication displayed in 9:27-34 had he not 
been hard put to it to fill up the number ten for his list of Mighty 
Works forming II, A. For while the "commandments" are Mt's 
chief interest he is also concerned at this point for what he regards 
as their proper setting. Thus in his narrative introduction to the 
Mission of the Twelve Mt is indeed abbreviating, as usual in his 
transcription of Markan narrative; but he is also scraping together 
instances of every kind of "mighty work," both from Mk and S, 
in an order adapted to his own purposes. For Mt himself is also a 
compiler of "doings" as well as "sayings," and in the present case 
he aims to make up a parallel to Old Testament prodigies related of 
Moses in Egypt and the Wilderness. Mk's miracles of healing did 
not suffice for Mt's purpose unless he included the Exorcism of a 
Dumb Devil (Mk 7:31-37) and the Opening of Blind Eyes (Mk 8:22- 
26). Both of these he includes; but not in the extended thaumaturgic 
form given them by Mk. No; Mt presents them in the briefer Q 
form in spite of later duplication. 4 It is difficult to imagine that if 
he knew the story of the Raising of the Widow's Son in S he would 
not have used it somewhere in the list in preference to his compli- 
cated method of completing his decad. The raising to life of the 
widow's son at Nain must therefore be classed with the involuntary 
omissions of Mt, in other words it was unknown to him. 

Conversely it is easy to see why this anecdote, if not that of the 
Penitent Harlot as well, should have been added in the Lukan version 
of S. The fact that it was originally related in some other context 
than that of S is made probable by the literal sense in which its 
compiler takes the phrase "the dead are raised up." It has been 
gathered up from oral tradition not by Lk but by some predecessor 
(L). The reader will ask, Why not hold Lk himself responsible? We 
answer: Because in the case of the other illustrative anecdote, the 
Penitent Harlot, Lk has cancelled the similar Markan story of the 
Anointing in Bethany (Mk 14:3-9), obviously to avoid duplication. 
Now critics recognize as interpolations certain incongruous embel- 

4 Mt 9:27-31 (qf. 20:29-34) and 32-34 (cf. 12:22 f.). 



MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 111 

lishments to the Penitent Harlot drawn from Mk 14:3 ff. and in- 
serted in Lk 7:37 f., 40, 43, 46; and if these are removed it becomes 
immediately apparent that the two stories are not duplicates. The 
occasions are not the same. The Penitent Harlot bedews the feet of 
the Messenger of divine forgiveness with her tears of love and grati- 
tude, then hastily with her braided hair wipes away what she ac- 
counts defilement. The woman disciple at Bethany seeks openly 
to proclaim her faith in the Son of David, anointing him (in her 
intention) for the throne she expects him to occupy; though in reality 
it is as Jesus says for the tomb. The name "Simon" for the host 
and the vial of precious ointment are wholly out of place in the 
story of the Penitent Harlot, as is shown by their belated point of 
attachment. These touches are contaminations of the original, and 
are due to the influence of Mk 14:3 ff. But had Lk himself been 
responsible for them he would not have drawn the false inference of 
duplication which led him to cancel Mk's story of the Anointing in 
Bethany. We infer that the exquisite story of the Penitent Harlot, 
with its interwoven "story-parable" is not the work of Lk but of 
a different and earlier hand (L). We also infer that the probable 
reason why at least the Raising of the Widow's Son, a part of the same 
connection, does not appear in Mt is not lack of willingness on Mt's 
part to include it, but lack of knowledge, inasmuch as his form of 
S did not contain the story. 

All this goes to corroborate the view of the many critics both before 
and after Streeter who have held to the doctrine of a " precanonical 
tradition of Lk." It also confirms the idea that this biographic de- 
velopment of the teaching material was later than Mk and to some 
extent influenced by it. The new feature of this long popular theory 
of a Lukan "Special Source" which marks the distinctive contri- 
bution of Streeter is that this unknown L was no other than Lk 
himself, as yet unacquainted with the work of Mk. To this feature 
we cannot subscribe, partly for the reason just given in the case of 
the cancellation of Mk 14:3 ff., partly for other reasons discussed 
in GM, pp. 193 ff. That which seems clearest is that in the case of 
Lk, if not of Mt also, we must leave room for predecessors in the 
line of transmission, some developing S in the direction of added 
anecdote (biographic expansion) others in that of "commandment" 
(gnomic expansion). Of course it is only the latest stages of this 
two-fold process which are in any measure within our control. How- 
ever, it is at least possible to make a beginning with Mt. We have 
seen enough of his redactional method in the case of Mk to realize 
that the limits of his activity, whether in supplementation, recasting, 
rearrangement, or omission, are wider than is commonly assumed. 
Especially must it be fully apparent that no merely mechanical ap- 



112 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

plication of the rule of verbal identity can determine the extent of Q. 
Elements of the "single-tradition" of Mt (P mt ) may be derived from 
S in spite of their non-appearance in Lk or their great differences of 
form or order. Conversely elements of S may appear in P lk in 
spite of their non-appearance elsewhere, or their appearance in widely 
different form and order. 

Three considerations, meantime, make it more probable that the 
non-appearance of the Lukan story-parables in Mt is not wholly 
due to Mt's disposition to omit narrative in favor of "commandment." 
(1) While a certain number, such as the Cheating Steward (Lk 16:1- 
9), the Importunate Friend (Lk 11:5-8), and Importunate Widow 
(Lk 18:1-8), might have seemed to Mt objectionable, and while we 
have evidence to show that the non-appearance of the Rich Fool 
(12:16-21) and the Importunate Friend is actually due to intentional 
omission, the entire mass of the Lukan story parables is too great 
to be thus accounted for. The Good Samaritan might conflict with 
certain Matthean prejudices (Lk 10:30-35; cf. Mt 10:5), but hardly 
that of the Pharisee and Publican (Lk 18:9-14), or that of the Rich 
Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-25). There is also a peculiar tone of pa- 
thos which characterizes the Lukan group of antithetic types in such 
parables as the Pharisee and Publican, the Samaritan and the Priests 
(Good Samaritan), the Two Forgiven Debtors (7:41-43), the Elder 
and Younger Brother (Prodigal Son), as well as anecdotes of con- 
trast such as Mary and Martha (10:38-42), the Thankful Samaritan 
Leper (17:11-19), the Penitent Thief (23:39-43), Zacchaeus (19:1- 
10), and the Penitent Harlot (7:36-50). This antithetic method is 
probably due chiefly to the compiler of the group (L), whose work 
was unknown to Mt. 5 

(2) The parable of the Elder and Younger Brother (Prodigal 
Son) appears in Mt 21 :28-32 in a form so widely different as to lead 
most critics to deny identity. If these two forms are actually derived 
from one original they are at least mutually independent. The 
Lukan forms part of the L group. The Matthean might be from S. 
A certain amount of overlapping between L and S is noticeable else- 
where. 

(3) Within the limits of his two non-Mk blocks of material we 
should expect Lk to preserve the original order. As shown in my 
articles in JBL for 1915, 1917, and 1918 (XXXIV, pp. 166-179; 
XXXVI, pp. 112-139; XXXVII, pp. 20-53) this is far from being 

6 The anecdote of the Widow's Mites belongs clearly to this type, as well as 
the Woman Taken in Adultery. If Mt's omission of the Widow's Mites is indeed 
intentional this might argue for like treatment of the entire group. The loose 
relation of this section (Mk 12:41-44=Lk 21:1-4) to the context suggests the 
possibility that in Mt's text of Mk this anecdote did not appear. The Woman 
Taken in Adultery appeared in Eusebius' time only in uncanonical tradition. 



MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 113 

the case. Lk has rearranged the material according to his own ideas 
of sequence, adapting ad vocem connections to a geographical and 
chronological scheme. This can be more easily accounted for if he 
(or his predecessor L) was blending two sources. 

For the above three reasons it appears more probable that Mt's 
omissions are due in many cases to lack of knowledge of the Lukan 
source L. In some cases we have seen reason to hold his omissions 
to be deliberate. These tend to show that L reproduces better than 
Mt the characteristics of S. 

On the other hand if Lk has access to two forms of S, the one form 
that shared with Mt, the other (L) an expanded form, perhaps in- 
fluenced by Mk, and containing such discourse supplements as the 
Baptist's definition of the Fruits meet for Repentance (Lk 3:10-14) 
and the Woes after the Beatitudes (6:24-26), such parabolic material 
as the "story" parables of chh. 15-17, and such anecdotes as Mary 
and Martha (10:38-42), the Healing of the Crooked Woman (13:10- 
17), the Penitent Harlot (7:36-50) and Penitent Thief (23:39-43), 
Zacchaeus .(19:1-10), and the Grateful and Thankless Lepers (17:11- 
19), this L document, whose S material Lk could at any time substi- 
tute for that of the form known to Mt, goes far to remove any occa- 
sion for positing an additional M document accessible only to Mt. 
Whether grounds really exist for Streeter's recent resort to such a 
hypothetical M document is a question for our next chapter on the 
P material of Mt. More detailed consideration will be given to it 
in Appended Note VIII. 

Reconstruction of the lost sources S and L does not come within 
the scope of the present volume, even in the narrowly restricted 
sense in which alone the term "reconstruction" is applicable. Never- 
theless under the topic Matthean Omissions there is occasion for con- 
sideration of two questions connected with these. (1) Why have 
we no trace of acquaintance with L in either the Preamble or the 
Epilogue of Mt? (2) Why have we so little trace of material from S 
in Mt's Passion story? At the risk of seeming to use unnecessary 
repetition a summary of conclusions on these two points will be 
desirable before proceeding to the analysis of P mt . 

1. In the gap so conspicuous in Mt 3:1 between the Preamble and 
the Narrative Introduction to Book I the reader naturally expects 
something corresponding to Lk's story of the boyhood of Jesus, 
especially if so winsome a story as that of the youthful Questioner 
in the Temple (Lk 2:41-51) was accessible to Mt as part of the L 
source. 

Correspondingly in the Epilogue it is astonishing to find no trace 
of any of the appearances of the risen Christ in and near Jerusalem, 



114 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

appearances to which the attention of Lk is exclusively confined. 
The partial exception formed by Mt 28:9 f. belongs to the type of 
those which "prove the rule" because of its superfluity in the con- 
text, since the appearance of Jesus adds nothing to the message 
already entrusted to the women by the angel, which they are already 
hastening to deliver. 

The answer to this apparent neglect of Mt is already before us in 
substance. The infancy chapters of Lk and the Eesurrection ap- 
pearances fill out an almost intolerable gap in Mk by the use of 
material which, whether from L or some other source, is unknown to 
Mt. Our first evangelist meets the same defect of Mk in a manner 
so completely independent of Lk that the utmost that can be said as 
to any interrelation is the suggestion of von Dobschiitz 6 that in- 
directly, through purely oral channels, some remote inkling of the 
Lk solution had come to the ears of Mt. Such a suggestion would 
be applicable to Mt's construction (from the LXX supplemented in 
verses 13-15 from unknown sources) of a genealogy inconsistent 
with Lk's, his variant story of the Virgin Birth (1:18-25), and his 
story of Jesus' Appearance to the Women (28:9 f.). 

On the other hand the use in Mt 18:10-14=Lk 15:3-7 of only one 
of the symmetrical pair of parables of the Lost Coin (Lk 15:8-10) 
and Lost Sheep suggests the same process of deliberate omission 
exemplified in the omission of the third example of Renunciation in 
Mk 9:43-48 (reproduced both in Mt 5:29 f. and 18:8 f. without Mk 
9:45), and again exemplified in the omission of the parables intro- 
ductory to the Q discourses on Prayer (Mt 6:9-13=Lk 11:1-4) and 
on Abiding Wealth (Mt 6:19 ff. = Lk 12:22 if.). However, it is at 
least as probable an explanation of the non-appearance in Mt of the 
parable of the Lost Coin that the accompanying parable of the Lost 
Sheep was the only one of the pair which appeared in S, its companion 
owing its presence in Lk to the fact that in ch. 15 Lk is following L; 
for the verbal similarity of Mt 18:12 f. to Lk 15:4-7 is not close. 
The apparent omission by Mt would thus be in reality an addition 
by L, just as the S form, of the Elder and Younger Son (Mt 21 :28-32) 
appears in Lk 15 (L?) at much greater length and in three-fold literary 
symmetry with the Lost Coin and Lost Sheep. 

2. In the case of the non-appearance of S material in the Passion 
story of Mt the solution of the problem is less simple. Considering the 
method habitual with Mt of interweaving Q material with Mk it is 
natural to expect that even in the Passion story, where Mk would 
naturally predominate, there would be further trace of S than actually 
appears. The majority of critics, accordingly, take the view that 
S was "not a gospel," as containing no reference to Jesus' death and 
s ZNW, XXVII, 3/4 (1928). 



MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 115 

resurrection. Per contra the present writer, with Weiss, Burkitt, 
and Vernon Bartlet, has maintained that a composition which began 
with the narrative of the Baptist's Preaching, the Baptism, Vocation, 
and Temptation of Jesus, could not end without some corresponding 
account of how this Vocation was fulfilled. To leave Jesus on the 
stage still discoursing would be an anti-climax inconceivable in a 
work of the literary quality of S, using Q alone as our basis of judg- 
ment. 

In justification of this broader view of the content of S it is pointed 
out by Burkitt and others that the Q material itself is not limited to 
the Galilean ministry of teaching. Wernle's omission of Jesus' promise 
of Twelve Thrones in the New Jerusalem to those who had "been 
with him in his trials" (Mt 19:28=Lk 22:28-30) from the list of 
Q passages (SF, p. 224) has not commended itself even to Harnack 
(Btr, II, pp. 95 and 146, Engl.) ; the logion must therefore be included 
as part of S regardless of consequences to the theory that S con- 
tained no Passion story. To Burkitt this alone is enough to disprove 
the limitation. 

As between Mt's and Lk's version of the promise, context and 
wording alike are more authentically given by Lk. The logion here 
forms part of a highly distinctive, non-Pauline account of the Insti- 
tution of the Covenant Repast, 7 doubtless drawn by Lk from L, 
who doubtless drew from S. Mt has taken the logion out of its con- 
text, as he so frequently does, has rewritten it in his own character- 
istic phraseology, 8 and inserted it into a Markan passage. Now as 
Burkitt points out (p. 141), the continuation in Lk 22:31-38 is a 
section wholly appropriate to the occasion, necessarily from high 
historical authority, and completely congruous and pari materia 
with Q. But this would not exclude L as a possible source. We must 
also observe with B. Weiss (QL, p. 90) that the remainder of verse 35, 
"When I sent you forth/' etc., is a direct reference to the mission 
recorded in Q (Mt 10:9 f. = Lk 10:4). It becomes, therefore, highly 
improbable that the coincidence between Mt and Lk in this Promise 
to the Twelve is due to common dependence on a second non-Markan 
source. It also assures us that S itself furnished part of the Lukan 
Passion story. Where we should draw the line between the P lk 
material derived from S and other parts of Lk's non-Markan Passion 
story only interconnection by cross-reference or otherwise can decide. 
In other words our standard of measurement must leave room for 
a certain amount of direct interconnection, as when Lk 22:35 makes 
explicit reference to Lk 10 :4. 

7 "I covenant to you, even as my Father covenanted to me a kingdom." 

8 Note ol aKo\ov6^ffavT^s /J.oi for Siafie/j.vriK6Tes (JLET t/j,ov KT\., ira\<.yyeveffla, 6 vl6s TOU 

iirl 6p6vov 56^t)S avrov. 



116 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Nor can historical probability decide. The assumption that S 
would not have placed the story of the Quarrel for Precedence in 
the midst of the tragic scenes of the night of betrayal unless such had 
been its true place, is unfortunately not a safe guide to the original 
order. The actual sequence of Lk (who seldom alters that of his 
sources) is more likely to represent S. It is perfectly possible that 
Mk may be historically correct in placing the Quarrel for Precedence 
on the road to Jerusalem, and that S, notwithstanding its greater 
antiquity, gave an unhistorical occasion for the story, locating it 
chiefly with reference to its moral lesson. 

A small but not insignificant exception to the rule of the disap- 
pearance of Q material from the scenes in Jerusalem must be added 
in the reference to Q of Mt 21:10 f., 14-16 =Lk 19:37^0, which 
V. Taylor justly defends. 9 

In our analysis of P mt in Chapter IX we shall see reason to in- 
clude also the parable of the Dissatisfied Wage-earners (Mt 20:1-15) 
among the S elements of Mt. If the argument be conceded a third 
factor will be added to plead against the view that S was "not a 
gospel" and "contained no account of the Passion"; for the associa- 
tion of this parable with the Vineyard parables of Mk 12:1-11, Mt 
21:28-32 and the Grace vs. Law group of Mk 10:17-45 bespeaks 
connection with utterances of the last period. 

Nevertheless the rarity of Q material in the Passion story of Mt un- 
doubtedly leaves room to invoke the principle above appealed to that 
exceptions of a certain character only "prove the rule." It is difficult 
to believe that Mt limited himself to Mk hi his closing narrative by 
intentional exclusion of a real Passion story which he could have 
exploited in S. If the Passion and Resurrection appeared in S it will 
have been in some other form; doubtless a form analogous to the rela- 
tion of narrative to discourse in the Q material generally; that is, 
in the description applied by Hawkins to the omitted Lk sections, 
Lk 11:1, 27 f., 37 f.; 12:13, "narratives introduced for the purpose of 
leading up to important logia." 

The Q passage Mt 12:22=Lk 11:14 (Exorcism of the Dumb Devil) 
thus "leads up to" the great anti-Pharisaic discourse at the close of 
the Galilean ministry. The Q stories of John's Baptism, the Voca- 
tion and Temptation of Jesus similarly "lead up to" the story of the 
public ministry as a whole. Doubtless the story of the Centurion's 
Servant (Mt 8:5-10=Lk 7:2-9), a Q narrative which differs in no 
definable respect from Mk's anecdotes told with similar purpose, 
"led up to" some "important logion" of the type of that to which 
Mt has joined it (Mt 8:11 f.=Lk 13:28-30). 

Let it be supposed, then, that the "important logion" of the 
9 Behind the Third Gospel, p. 94 f. 



MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 117 

Thrones of the House of David (for Mt 19:28=Lk 2228-30 was 
recognized no later than by Andreas of Caesarea as an echo of Ps. 
122:5) was "led up to" in S by some such account of the Covenant 
Supper as actually prefaces it in Lk 22:24-30a, though this context 
may perhaps represent an L development rather than S in its original 
form. Can it be imagined that Mt, whose reverence for the authority 
of Peter must be judged by such incorporated passages as Mt 16:16- 
19 and its companion "Petrine supplements," would give preference 
to an unauthoritative preliminary narrative of S, when Mk's "Rem- 
iniscences of Peter" gave a much more circumstantial and (bio- 
graphically speaking) correct account of the Dispute as to Who shall 
be Greatest (Mk 10:28-31)? Would he be apt to use a non-Petrine 
story of the Covenant Supper in preference to Mk 14:22-25? We 
may be thankful rather that his disposition to interweave even small 
bits of S in his Mk material has preserved the shreds of Q in 19:28 
and21:10f., 14-16. 

But if Mt, impelled by an excessive respect for the Petrine author- 
ity of Mk, or for any other reason, has set aside the preliminary 
narrative of S in favor of the far more detailed account of Mk, all 
we can do is to fall back on Lk, who at least has a non-Markan story 
(L) whereof the nuclear logion coincides with Mt 19:28. On this 
we must frame our idea of what really formed the closing scenes of S. 
The "reconstruction" will inevitably follow the outline of Lk's 
Passion story minus the Mk material. 

The farewell Supper on the night of betrayal will then be the nar- 
rative framework for two important elements of discourse : (a) The 
Promise of Reunion in the glory of the New Jerusalem, substantially 
an equivalent for the "faithful saying" quoted in II Tim 2:11-13; (b) 
a second Mission of the Twelve, contrasted explicitly with the first 
related in the Q passage Mt 10:9 f. = Lk 10:4, and including a sub- 
stantial equivalent for the warning of the world's hatred and promise 
of the Advocate in Jn 16:1-8. 

Now Mt has made of the two sendings a single final Mission of 
the Twelve in the Discourse of Book II. He has included in it the 
promise of the Advocate (Mt 10:19 f. = Lk 12:11 f.), here entirely 
misplaced, together with other material borrowed from Mk 13:9-13. 
For Mk is of course responsible for the displacement in both Mt and 
Lk. But the indispensable narrative context of two farewell dis- 
courses of Jesus may be restored, as B. Weiss has seen. 10 

Let us assume, then, that a present-day biographer were set the 
task of embodying in the form of discourse the pragmatic content 
of the Passion story, which Mk relates in narrative form. He would 
surely make its two themes exactly those of our two Q fragments: 

10 QL, pp. 90, 122-131. 



118 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

(a) "the sufferings of Jesus and the glories that should follow" (I Pt. 
1:11), (b) the Apostolic Commission and Promise of the Spirit. 
These two elements of the Passion story it was perfectly possible to 
set forth in the form of discourse, using little more of actual narrative 
than enough to show how Jesus' prediction and promise were ful- 
filled. 

If the closing division of S included such elements as the parable 
of the Elder and Younger Son, led up to as in Mt 21 :28-32 by the 
narrative of the Purging of the Temple; if it included in addition the 
Promise of Thrones in the New Jerusalem (Mt 19:28=Lk 22:28-30) 
led up to by the narrative of the Quarrel as to Who shall be Greatest 
and the Farewell Supper, as in Mt 19:27, and Lk 22:24-30; if, finally, 
it also included the ultimate Mission of the Twelve, with Prediction 
of the World's Hostility offset by the Promise of the Spirit, as in Mt 
10: 16-20 =Lk 10:3; 12:11 f., there will be little ground for reproaches 
against Mt for neglect to make use of it. Mt's changes were princi- 
pally changes of form tending toward the gnomic as L and Lk favor 
the biographic. 

No doubt the advent of Mk made a vast difference to the writers 
of Gospels. Its ending hi particular, whose original form can only 
be guessed at from Petrine tradition surviving elsewhere compared 
with Mk's own anticipations in 14:27 f., led to the kind of division 
we see illustrated in the work of Lk, in which the major emphasis 
of the resurrection doctrine appears in a second "treatise." The 
division of the record into two sections, Gospel and Acts, no doubt 
played a part in the disappearance of the original ending of Mk. 11 
But the values of the resurrection doctrine had already been given 
hi S, if we may include in it that which we have just seen to be its 
probable content. Mk as we have it in our critical texts had set the 
standard for "gospel" writing when Lk and Mt were compiled. 
The consequence was that such expression as S had given to the 
religious values of the Passion story by its form of discourses "led 
up to" by a bare outline of introductory narrative gave way. Mt 
incorporates the second Mission of the Twelve into the Discourse 
of his Book II, composing only a perfunctory substitute in 28:16-20 
to piece out the truncated Mk. Other portions of the closing dis- 
courses of S, whose original place still appears in L and Jn, found 
lodgment in the general framework of Markan narrative. In Lk 
they appear only in the recast of L. 

We are therefore under no compulsion to accept the theory that 
S was "not a gospel." We know that it began as a drama of the 
Message of Salvation, the divine Messenger being introduced to the 
spectator as "the Son of God" in a voice from heaven, while a fore- 

11 See my GM, Ch. XV. 



MATTHEAN OMISSIONS 119 

cast of his redemptive career was conveyed in the symbolic story 
of the Temptation. It cannot, then, have ended with the Messenger 
still upon the stage, still reciting his unfinished lines. The literary 
quality of the Q material in such S discourses as that comparing the 
work of Jesus and John (Mt ll:2-19=Lk 7:18-35) forbids such an 
estimate of its unknown author's capacity. We need not, then, sup- 
pose that S left out the most essential part of the gospel message. 
We may assume that its writer did include the Passion story "in some 
form," 12 presumably the form of discourse "led up to" by a mini- 
mum of narrative. 

12 OS, p. 335. 



CHAPTER IX 
MT'S SINGLE-TRADITION (P) MATERIAL 

SUCCESSIVE subtraction of the Mk and Q material from Mt leaves 
a comparatively small amount to be accounted for. This P mt ma- 
terial may be classified in four divisions: (1) S p , that is material de- 
rived from S but as yet unidentified; (2) material derived from other 
written sources such as L, or a possible M or N; (3) material derived 
from oral tradition (O); (4) material supplied by the evangelist 
himself without extraneous contribution (R). 

As respects value for an authentic record of the life and teaching 
of Jesus these P elements will rank nearly in the order named. S 
material needs no appraisal. Written sources such as the L supposed 
by many critics to underlie Lk, or the M which Streeter finds in Mt 
similarly mediating between the canonical Gospel and S, would 
have high claims if the existence of the document were made prob- 
able. N is widely recognized to be apocryphal. Oral tradition 
might conceivably still retain in Mt's day some authentic report 
of Jesus' life and teaching, though each section would invite sepa- 
rate judgment as to its authenticity and value. Lastly elements 
contributed by the evangelist himself in the mere adaptation of his 
material would have no contribution to make as regards the earlier 
time. 

To the critic, contrariwise, the relative valuation of the P ele- 
ments may be almost reversed. For source analysis, which is the 
critic's prior interest, the R factor is vital. It is essential to the re- 
liability of his results that he use every means of acquiring a clear 
apprehension of the evangelist's purpose and qualifications. Without 
accurate discrimination between such purely redactional material 
as reflects R mt personally, and such current material, oral or writ- 
ten, as he has embodied, it is impossible to do justice to the work as a 
whole. Reserving a special chapter for this study of "Traits of the 
Redactor" we may proceed to discuss the other factors of P mt in 
the order of their historical value. 

Additions to S from P based primarily on the individual critic's 
impression of affinity with Q are justly questioned by the contribu- 
tors to OS. As an example of this defect of method we may take the 
judgment of Wernle on two parables added in P mt to the Mk group 
on Hiding the Mystery of the Kingdom. These are the two short 

120 



MT'S SINGLE-TRADITION (P) MATERIAL 121 

parables of Hid Treasure and Costly Pearl (Mt 13:44-46) which 
Wernle (SF, p. 187) assigns to Q (sc. S) on the inadequate ground that 
"they are told in the same style as those of the Mustard Seed and 
the Leaven, with no alien addition." 1 It is true that the common- 
places of "treasure in heaven" and "pearls" as a measure of value 
are not unknown to the discourse of Jesus (Mk 10:21; Mt 6:20=Lk 
12:33 and Mt 7:6); but the motive which distinguishes Jesus' ex- 
hortations to right living from those of Mt and the rabbis generally 
is here lacking. Jesus emphasizes inward values as against outward, 
Mt present vs. future. The "style," like the motive, can only be 
called "Matthean." Its distinctive feature is the stereotyped for- 
mula "The Kingdom of heaven is like unto" uniformly prefixed by 
Mt even when inappropriate. The position of the two appended 
parables, raising the total of Mk's group to seven, and the correspond- 
ence thus effected with all the rest of Mt's Discourses which uni- 
formly conclude with depictions of reward and punishment in the 
world to come, also point to R as author. The dubious morality of 
the finder of the Hid Treasure does not affect the question. 2 Oral 
tradition (in which must be included Jewish Synagogue exhortation 
as well as possible reminiscence of real utterances of Jesus) is quite 
sufficient to account for such historic value as the two comparisons 
may possess. R mt , who can elaborate 10:40-42 on the slender basis 
of Mk 9:37, 41 plus a rabbinic proverb, who can expand the nucleus 
Lk 12:35 f. into the parable of the Ten Virgins (Mt 25:1-13), or 
compose the splendid picture of the Judgment of 25:31-46 with only 
Mk 9:37 as a text, would need little help from tradition to re-enforce 
his favorite doctrine by two comparisons of the kingdom of heaven 
to Hid Treasure and a Costly Pearl. 3 Lk's omission of the two makes 
improbable their derivation from S. 

A better claim can be made out for the three-fold example of 
Inwardness in Worship in Mt 6:1-8, 16-18, again supported by 
Wernle on grounds of style. A glance at our translation below 4 
will show that this table of duties toward God appended by Mt to 
the Q section on duty toward man (5:43-48) forms an instructive 
example of his method of piece-work compilation. If proper note 
be now taken of the witness of Lk it will be apparent that we should 

1 Hawkins concurs nevertheless in this judgment (OS, III, p. 136). 

2 See McNeile ad loc. 

3 A rabbinic parallel to the Costly Pearl is given by Nork (Rabbinische Quellen, 
1839, p. 73) from Shabbath fol. 119a. Astrologers predicted to a rich man that all 
his property would pass into the hands of a neighbor. He decided to sell all, in- 
vesting the proceeds in one pearl. Taking a journey thereafter by sea he was 
shipwrecked and drowned, the pearl was swallowed by a fish, which when caught 
was sold to the neighbor. 

4 Part III. See also Appended Note VIII. 



122 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

follow Marriott 6 in taking the Q material Mt 7:1 ff. = Lk 6:37 ff. as 
the immediate sequel to Mt 5:43-48. The long digression on Right 
Religion (6:1-18) and its Heavenly Reward (19-34) is compiled by 
R mt from various sources. The Q material (6:9-13 and 19-34) can 
be traced, thanks to Lk, to its original connection. The opening 
verse (6:1) may be assigned to R mt on linguistic grounds. The en- 
closing framework of the Lord's Prayer, verses 7-8 and 14-15, which 
Mt substitutes for the Lk context, is probably- "due to the compiler" 
for reasons stated by Marriott. Other reasons will appear presently. 
As to the remainder, Mt 6: 2-6 and 6-18, "decision is not easy." 

The errors they condemn are especially Pharisaic, and the phraseology 
and allusions are Jewish (e.g., 8iK<uo<rvvrj in verse 1, vTroKptrai in verses 2, 
5, 16, /? o-a\7rto-7/s efiirpoa-Oev vov in verse 2). It is thus the sort of matter 
which Lk might well omit. 

Nevertheless, in view of six considerations of some weight Marriott 
is disinclined to admit the section as having formed part of S. The 
sixth of these indicates what disposal he would make of the material. 

The parallelism and homogeneity of the three divisions of Mt 6:1-6, 
16-18 are remarkable. The illustrations of the contrast between the old 
moral standards and the new in the preceding passage do not exhibit any- 
thing equal to this balance and parallelism. 6 Perhaps it is on this ground 
more likely, as Dean Robinson thinks, 7 that these verses constitute a 
"little sermon" which at one time "had a separate existence of its own." 

It seems improbable indeed that R mt should have produced so 
fine an example of literary symmetry, only to destroy its beauty by 
the immediate interjection of material from other connections. Oral 
tradition would hardly account for the literary form of the "little 
sermon." On the other hand its contrast of inward vs. outward 
worship, as well as certain expressions such as /ucr06s in verses 1, 2, 5, 
16 compared with 5:46, speak for its authenticity. Must we choose 
between S in some other connection and a third source such as the 
M posited by Streeter, containing (or consisting of) a parallel version 
of the Sermon; or does the theory of L provide a solution? Ap- 
pended Note VIII must take up this question. 

Another important passage claimed by Wernle as "perhaps" 
from S in spite of its non-appearance in Lk's parallel (Lk 10:21 f.) 
is Wisdom's Invitation, Mt 11:28-30. Allen (ICC, p. 123) notes the 
"undoubted dependence" of verses 28-30 on Ecclus. 50-51, tran- 
scribing the parallel phrases. Nevertheless he marks the entire passage 

5 The Sermon on the Mount, pp. 92 ff . 

6 This is hardly the case if deduction be made of R's interpolations. 

7 Study of the Gospels, p. 79. 



MT'S SINGLE-TRADITION (P) MATERIAL 123 

25-29 as a unit belonging to the "Logia." Norden 8 also claims 
the whole for S, though equally at a loss with Wernle to account for 
Lk's omission. In this case decision is aided by the "undoubted 
dependence" on Ecclesiasticus, a writing more favored by the early 
rabbis than any other outside the strict canon of Akiba. Dependence 
almost equally clear on the same writing is observable in Mt's re- 
dactional framework of the Lord's Prayer: 

Mt 6:7 Ecclus. 7:14 

And in praying use not vain rep- Prate not in the multitude of the 

etitions, as the Gentiles do; for they elders; and repeat not thy words in 

think they shall be heard for their thy prayer, 
much speaking. 

Mt6:14f. Ecclus. 28:1 f. 

For if ye forgive men their tres- He that taketh vengeance shall 
passes, your heavenly Father will find vengeance from the Lord, and 
also forgive you. But if ye forgive He will surely make firm his sins, 
not men their trespasses, neither will Forgive thy neighbor the hurt that 
your Father forgive your trespasses, he hath done thee, and then thy sins 

shall be pardoned when thou prayest. 

In earlier discussions I have been disposed to take the explanation 
of B. Weiss 9 as sufficient to account for the non-appearance of Mt 
11:28-30 in Lk's parallel. The balance of probability seems to be 
altered by the above. Repeated dependence on Ecclesiasticus sug- 
gests like derivation. Mt 6:7 f. and 14 f. being assignable to R the 
same is probably true of 11 :28-30 also. 

For systematic study of the question how far we may go in ascrib- 
ing to S P mt or P lk material recourse should be had to the article of 
Sir John Hawkins entitled "Probabilities as to the so-called Double 
Tradition of St Mt and St Lk." 10 Beginning with a characterization 
of the source as to its nature and contents Sir John gives reasons why 
we should expect to find S material in the two "single traditions" 
(P), taking the following example (p. 132): 

The conjecture which is furthest from a mere guess and nearest to an 
inference is that Mt. 5:17-48, the long passage in which the contrast be- 
tween the Jewish and the Christian law and standard of life is drawn out 
and illustrated by six examples, was for the most part drawn from Q (sc. S). 
For we have two intimations that at least the general framework of that 
passage was familiar to Lk possibly of course in some other source known 
to him and Mt, but far more probably in the Q (sc. S) which they so often 
used in common. 

*Agnostos Theos, p. 301. 9 QL, p. 70. 10 OS, III, pp. 95-138. 



124 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The two grounds are found in Lk 7:27 compared with Mt 5:43 f. 
and Lk 16:17 f. compared with Mt 5:30-32. It is unnecessary to 
express agreement with this reasoning since an earlier volume of 
my own (SM, 1902, p. 74 f.) has already made this clear. On the 
grounds stated Sir John regards Mt 5:17-48 as "a section which we 
may regard as more likely to have formed part of Q (sc. S) than any 
other which is found only in a single Gospel." 

Next to this in the claim to rank as S p "but at a 'considerable 
distance behind it" Hawkins would place a group of passages for 
whose omission by Lk we can more or less satisfactorily account. 
To this group would belong (a) "anti-Pharisaic discourses" such as 
"the more polemical parts of Mt 5:17-48 just referred to" and in 
addition Mt 6:1-8, 16-18; 15:12 f.; 21:28-32; 23:2, 3, 5, 14-22, 
32 f. (b) Lk may also have omitted "as either obscure or uninterest- 
ing or even distasteful to his readers the sayings which we read in 
Mt7:6; 10:5 f., 23; 12:5f., 36 f.; 18:10, 17; 19:10-12." 

Under group (a) of the above we can admit some cogency for 
Hawkins' explanation of the non-appearance in Lk of Inwardness 
in Worship (Mt 6:1-8, 16-18), a passage as to whose possible deriva- 
tion from S judgment has been reserved; also for the Parable of the 
Elder and Younger Son (21:28-32), which might be the S equivalent 
of Lk 15:11-32 (L), omitted by Lk to avoid duplication. The re- 
mainder, belonging to the typical Matthean polemic against the 
leaders of the Synagogue, seems to our view to offer no claim what- 
ever to derivation from S, nor indeed any reason why it should have 
been omitted by Lk. For Lk admits freely anti-Pharisaic material 
from S (e.g., Lk ll:37-52). u What he omits is material of this kind 
which might seem opposed to the authority of the Old Testament. Mt's 
fierce polemic is that of rabbi against rabbi, the true "scribe who 
hath been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven," against the 
blind guides who lead Israel to destruction through false interpreta- 
tion of the Law and the Prophets. Against the latter class Mt launches 
such proverbial sayings as 15:12 f. ; 12:36 f., and compiles such anath- 
emas as 23:2, 3, 5, 14-22. Their affinity is rather with N than with 
S, so far as any source is sought beyond R and 0. 

In group (b) the sayings Mt 7:6; 10:5 f. and 23 might have been 
omitted by Lk as distasteful to his readers; 12:5 f. and 36 f. are far 
more likely to be supplements from our "rabbi made a disciple of 
the kingdom of heaven," 18:17 bears on its face the stamp of the 
church administrative rule of late date. There remains the possibil- 
ity of derivation from S in the case of the Warning against Stumbling 
the Weak (18:10) and the Commendation of Celibacy (19:10-12), 
though it is not altogether apparent why Lk should purposely omit 

11 See, however, Acts 23:6; 26:5 f. 



MT'S SINGLE-TRADITION (P) MATERIAL 125 

these. Against Mt 7:6; 10:5 f. and 23 we might place a doubtful N. 
The gleaning of possible S material from these two classes of P mt 
is small indeed. 

As a supporter of the view that S consisted of a loose agglomera- 
tion of disconnected logia (Spruchsammlung theory) Sir John naturally 
deprecates the disposition of critics such as B. Weiss to assign to it 
passages found in Mt or Lk but not in both of them, as to which 
we can only say that the subject-matter of them is either more or 
less congruous and in pari materia with what we have seen to be the 
contents of the "passages common to both Gospels" (OS, p. 135). 
Nevertheless he finds it impossible to exclude entirely this secondary 
criterion and therefore lists from (a) to (k) certain classes of passages 
which to his conception display this "congruity." Under (a) he 
would include "moral and religious' teachings for -Christians " such 
as 6:34; 11:28-30; 12:36 f.; 18:10, 19 f., on all but two of which judg- 
ment has already been expressed. 12 The exceptions are the Semitic 
equivalent for our own proverb "Do not borrow trouble," appended 
in 6:34, and the promise of answer to united prayer, 18:19 f. Prover- 
bial sayings such as the former are common in Mt (cf. 5:14b; 7:6; 
10:41; 12:37, etc.) Connection of the latter with Pirqe Aboth, III, 3 
and Oxyrhynchus Logia, fragm. IV, suggests derivation from O along 
with the preceding context. No definable reason can be given why 
Lk should omit these logia if he found them in S. 

Under the heads of (b) "warnings to opposing Jews," (c) "anti- 
Pharisaic denunciations," (d) "sayings specially addressed to teach- 
ers," (e) "references to the Parousia," Hawkins brings forward a 
list of passages which one would imagine specially chosen as char- 
acteristic not of S but of R. A "warning to opposing Jews" more 
distinctively "Matthean" than 21:43 would be hard to conceive. 
The "anti-Pharisaic denunciation" Mt 15:12 f. has already been 
characterized. 13 It shares the character of "Matthean" and rab- 
binic with the "sayings addressed to teachers" Mt 23:7b-10. The 
"reference to the Parousia" (really a charge of the calamities of the 
last times to the account of the "false prophets" and workers of 
di/0/ua) in Mt 24:11 f. is unmistakably the product of R's own pen. 
Passages (b) to (e) we should classify not as S p but as R mt . 

The only other P mt elements in which Hawkins finds "congruity" 
with S are certain parables, classified under (g), the six "quotations" 
from the Mosaic law brought forward for comment in Mt 5:17-48, 
which differ in character from the "direct quotations" he regards as 
rare in S, classified under (h), single miracles "introduced for the pur- 
pose of leading up to important logia of Jesus," classified under (i), and 
finally, under (k), possible P mt material in the Passion narratives. 

12 See above, pp. 122 f ., 124. 13 Above, p. 124. 



126 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The Scripture quotations of Mt form a subject by themselves. 
To those assignable to S we have felt it necessary to devote an Ap- 
pended Note. 14 Single miracles of the type described under (i) do 
not occur in P mt . As regards (k) apart from the single Q passage 
promising the "thrones of the house of David" to the Twelve in the 
messianic kingdom (Mt 19:28 = Lk 22:28-30) we have seen that Mt 
bases his Passion narrative (as distinguished from discourse) on Mk, 
save for a few apocryphal supplements certainly not from S. The 
nature and derivation of these supplements must be discussed in our 
Special Introduction to the Epilogue. 

If, then, Passion narratives have survived from S we must look 
for them in P lk . This leaves of classes (f) to (k) only the Matthean 
parables (g). These require treatment at considerable length, be- 
cause of certain notable characteristics which differentiate them as 
a group from the Lukan, whether because of an additional source 
available to none but Lk, rich in parables of the "story" type; or 
because of predilections of Mt which led him to omit S material of 
this character which Lk retained. 

Sir John considers "the fewness (or possibly absence) of long 
parables" to be characteristic of Q (sc. S). We must record dissent at 
the outset from any such standard of judgment. The controlling mo- 
tive is not, with any of our evangelists, either aesthetic or historical. 
It is primarily religious. Mt in particular cares little whether a para- 
ble be long or short, interrogative or narrative in form, if only it 
fulfil the function he requires of every parable he takes up, viz., 
to illustrate the particular religious lesson he seeks to inculcate. 
He includes and omits parables regardless of these distinctions. 
He elaborates parables at great length, as in his construction of the 
Tares from Mk's Patient Husbandman or the Ten Virgins from the 
S q admonition to Watchfulness and warning of the Fast-closing 
Door. He attaches supplementary brief parables when occasion 
requires, as in 13 :44-46. He does not hesitate to attach a very long 
parable in narrative form to the Q saying on Forgiving a Brother 
(Mt 18:15, 21 f. = Lk 17:3 f.) in 18:23-35, when concerned to close 
his Discourse on Church Relations with an appropriate presentation 
of his favorite maxim, 15 nor does he scruple to cancel parables both 
long and short when incorporating the material they introduce in 
one of his agglutinated Discourses. 16 In a word Mt acts in full appre- 
ciation of the distinction already laid down, that for our evangelists 
parable is "illustrative fiction" and for that reason enjoys no such 

14 See Appended Note V. 

15 See above discussion of Mt 6:14 f., p. 123 and c/. Mt 5:23 f. 

16 See above, p. 108 on the omission of the Importunate Friend (Lk 11:5-8) 
and the Rich Fool (Lk 12:16-21). 



MT'S SINGLE-TRADITION (P) MATERIAL 127 

respect as "commandments," or even as narrative not supposed 
to be fictitious. Neither of Mt nor of S can it be imagined that the 
writer entertained the purpose "to make a collection of them." The 
nearest approach to this is Mt's expansion of Mk's three examples of 
the "hiding the mystery of the kingdom" to a total of seven in 13:1- 
50. But even the chapter of Parables of the Kingdom is not formed 
to complete a collection. Mt only seeks to emphasize a particular 
doctrine, that of the "hardening of Israel" which the use of parables 
is supposed to prove. 

It probably misrepresents the intention even of L, often spoken of 
as distinguished by the great group of "story" parables he supplies 
to Lk, to think of him as "making a collection" of these. Doubtless 
the author of this rich source took special delight in parable as one 
of the best means of setting forth the teaching of Jesus; he may 
even have had better appreciation than others of the literary beauty 
of some of Jesus' story-parables. If L be recognized as a real inter- 
mediate link between S and Lk this writer (L) takes the same road 
as Lk in using the biographic form as best adapted to evangelism, 
instead of the gnomic preferred by Mt. But if we may judge by the 
freedom with which L treats his material (cf. Lk 15:11-32 with Mt 
21:28-31 and see above, p. 112) and is himself in turn treated by 
Lk, the historic motive was in L and Lk alike entirely subordinate 
to the religious. There was no effort to "collect," there were simply 
differences as to the extent and manner of using illustration. 

With these prefatory remarks we may address ourselves to the 
question whether P mt contains material in the shape of parable 
which is "more or less congruous and in pari materia" with Q. If 
in addition reasonable explanation can be given for omission by Lk 
the passage in question will offer as much evidence for ascription to 
S as is possible for P material. 

We are not here concerned with S parables found in P lk such as 
the Importunate Friend (Lk 11:5-8) or the Rich Fool (Lk 12:16-21) 
which it has been shown were probably omitted by Mt either as 
intrinsically objectionable, or to free the lessons they introduce for 
readier inclusion in his agglutinated Discourse. Other Lukan parables 
ascribable to the L source, were probably unknown to Mt. We are 
concerned solely with parables in P mt which by position, affinity of 
content, or otherwise might be ascribable to S if omission by Lk can 
be accounted for. Of such we discover but one, the Dissatisfied Wage- 
earners, or, as Hawkins entitles it, "the Labourers in the Vineyard" 
(Mt 20:1-16). 

As regards position it will be noted that this parable is not ap- 
pended, like so many in Mt, to the close of his Discourses, but stands 
in the midst of a Mk group whose theme is Grace vs. Law as the Way 



128 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of Life. This group consists of Children as Heirs (Mk 10:13-16 = Mt 
19:13-15) and Rich Enquirer (Mk 10:17-31 = Mt 19:16-30), fol- 
lowed in Mk 10:35-45=Mt 20:20-28 by the Ambitious Request of 
James and John. If we pass over the Mk material which next fol- 
lows in Mk 10:46-52 = Mt 20:29-34, Mk ll:l-33 = Mt 21:1-27 we 
come to another "Vineyard Parable," Mt's version of the Elder and 
Younger Son ( = Lk 15:11-32 L?), and immediately after to a third 
"vineyard parable," the Mk parable of the Usurping Husbandmen 
(Mk 12:l-12 = Mt 21:33-46). The affinity of the Dissatisfied Wage- 
earners with the Elder and Younger Son, the nearest possible Q 
material, is so close that the two might well be regarded as forming 
twin parables. 

Again, as regards contents, the real moral of the parable of the 
Dissatisfied Wage-earners is not that which Mt takes such pains to 
impress upon the reader by enclosing it between two identical say- 
ings "The last shall be first and the first last." The enclosing verses 
show that Mt understands the parable in the sense of his colophon 
to the third "vineyard parable" 21:43: "The kingdom of God shall 
be taken away from you and given to a nation bringing forth the 
fruits thereof." But this does injustice to the parable in its intrinsic 
sense. It is not a mere prophecy of the coming overturn, which will 
place the kingdom in the hands of the despised Nazarenes making 
the "last first," but is really an illustration of the principle inculcated 
in the Mk group to which Mt attaches it, the principle of divine 
grace as the only basis of admission to life eternal. 17 Now this is 
distinctly a principle of S and not of Mt. It is sharply advanced, 
however, in the parables of the Elder and Younger Son (Q and L) 
and in the Lk logion on Meriting Reward (Lk 17:7-10). The parable 
of the Dissatisfied Wage-earners is therefore in pari materia with Q. 
We may class it as S p if omission by Lk can be accounted for. Of the 
many paradoxes of Jesus' teaching none, perhaps, was more unac- 
ceptable to post-apostolic neo-legalism than the doctrine of unmerited 
grace. Indeed even the modern mind, schooled in the principles of 
the trade-unions, rebels at the attitude of the vineyard-owner in pay- 
ing an unequal wage from mere "sovereign grace." We cannot 
wonder therefore at omission by Lk, and only marvel at the curious 
misapplication by which Mt makes it admissible. In the case of this 
single parable from P mt we do seem, then, to have grounds for as- 
cription to S. 

Per contra nothing distinctive of S appears in the parable of the 
Unmerciful Servant (Mt 18:23-35). On the contrary, its position 
closing the Discourse of Book IV, its content elaborating Mt's favor- 

17 B. Weiss points out a further affinity with the Mk group in the teaching that 
grace admits no distinction of reward; cf. Mk 10:29-31. 



MT'S SINGLE-TRADITION (P) MATERIAL 129 

ite maxim 18 is the exact equivalent of Mt 6:14 f. (R), and there 
is no definable reason why Lk should have omitted it if found in S. 

The question remains whether P mt furnishes any material re- 
quiring us to posit a document M between S and Mt, as L is sup- 
posed to have intervened between S and Lk; or whether the remain- 
ing P material not definitely assignable to N or R may be considered 
fully subsumed under the designation 0. Full discussion of this 
must be reserved for Appended Note VIII, but a few observations 
may be made at this point. 

We have seen above that oral tradition is amply sufficient to ac- 
count for the two short parables of Hid Treasure and Costly Pearl 
appended by Mt to the Mk group. Just the same reasoning applies, 
of course, to the closing (seventh) parable of the group (Sorting the 
Catch, Mt 13:47-50). This parable applies the figure of the Fishing 
of Men (Mk 1:17; cf. L, Lk 5:1-11) to Mt's favorite warning, the 
sifting out the hearts of men before the judgment seat. In this case, 
as in the Interpretation of the Tares (verses 36-43), we have the 
additional proof of a full set of R's stereotyped eschatological phrases 
for "the End of the World"; cf. verses 40-43 with 49 f., 22:11-14, 
and 25:31-46. Only the appending of an eighth parable in 13:51 f., 
perhaps favors Streeter's distinction of two stages, M and Mt, in the 
redactional process. But the content of 13:51 f., is of the very bone 
and flesh of R mt . 

The work of R in supplementing this closing discourse of the Gali- 
lean ministry is significant because of the parallel it supplies for his 
completion of the final discourse at Jerusalem, fifth and last of the 
series. Further comparison with the second and fourth discourses 
will show the same method and the same interest predominant 
throughout. The Mission of the Twelve, closing in 10:40-42 with 
the words "shall in no wise lose his reward," supplements the 
promise of Mk 9:37, by adding in verse 41 what would appear to be 
a current saying, perhaps rabbinic, on reward for hospitality shown 
to "prophets and righteous men." w The remainder is an elaboration 
of Mk 9:41, which is used again as the nucleus of the great depiction 
of the Judgment of the Son of Man in "the end of the world." Dis- 
course IV on Duty toward Church Members has an analogous ending 
in the parable of the Unforgiving Debtor (18:23-35). The student 
who has observed R's supplement to the Lord's Prayer in 6:14 f., 
and has noted his free use of Ecclus. 28:1-7 there and supplementa- 
tion in 22:11-14 of the parable of the Slighted Invitation, will not 

18 Cf. J. A. Robinson, Study of the Gospels, p. 100, "Mt manifests more concern 
than the other evangelists for forgiveness within the Christian brotherhood." 

19 For the phrase cf. 13:17. 



130 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

need to be told that the building up from the single Q phrase "Forgive 
us our trespasses, for we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us" 
of a complete parable such as that of the Unforgiving Debtor is quite 
within the capacity of R. 

Correspondingly the expansion of the Q parables of Watchfulness 
(Lk 12:35 f.) and the Closing Door (Lk 13:25) into the Ten Virgins 
(Mt 25:1-13) and the composition of the closing depiction of the 
Judgment of the Son of Man (25:31-46), with only Mk. 9:41 as an 
authentic text, give a basis for estimating the proportion of nuclear 
O necessary to the production of Matthean R. This estimate will be 
applicable to the question whether a "fourth document" M is really 
required to account for the variations of Mt from Lk's version of S. 

The foregoing illustrations of the wide limits which R permits 
himself in the expansion, allegorization and supplementation of 
parables, material which he clearly regards as haggadic illustration 
rather than halachic "commandment," reduce very greatly the occa- 
sion for positing an M source. Little has thus far appeared in favor 
of the theory beyond the limits of the Sermon on the Mount, and 
this will receive further consideration in the Special Introduction 
to Book I, and Appended Note VIII. Dislocation of the original 
"literary symmetry" of Mt 6:1-18 is no greater than the dislocations 
effected in the Antitheses of the Higher Righteousness which precede 
(5:21^18). A version M of the Sermon employed and expanded by 
R mt may be found a necessary assumption. If so, shall we consider 
that this M version stands closer to the S represented by the Q 
material? Or shall we hold Lk responsible, as having resorted to L 
for at least a part of his variant report? These questions must be left 
open for the present. 

We must also leave open the question of N. The Special Intro- 
ductions to Preamble and Epilogue will afford opportunity for discus- 
sion of the questions raised by the so-called "Reflection-citations" 
(Reflexionscitate) , the Nativity stories, the Petrine Supplements of 
Book IV, and the Apocryphal Additions of the Epilogue. It is true 
that this material has claims to be regarded as drawn from oral tra- 
dition rather than from any written document. Conrady 20 and 
Dieterich 21 have pointed out the incoherence of the individual parts 
of the birth stories as indicative of such an origin. Soltau adduces 
distinctions of style and language characterizing all four elements of 
N material. In his view these represent R himself. It is generally 
admitted that these four elements have a certain unity, and this 
entitles them to separate consideration apart from general classi- 
fication under O. 

20 Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte, 1900. 

21 "Die Weisen aus dem Morgenlande," Kleine Schriften, p. 272. 



CHAPTER X 
TRAITS OF THE REDACTOR 

THE Gospel of Mt should be printed with a portrait of the author as 
a frontispiece. For such an unconscious portrait has been furnished 
by the evangelist himself in the words placed in Jesus' mouth as a 
conclusion to Book III. An eighth parable is appended in Mt 13 :51 f . 
to the group of seven in which Jesus commits to the Twelve the 
"mystery of the kingdom" which had been vainly preached to the 
unrepentant cities of Galilee. "Have ye understood all these things?" 
Jesus now asks of the disciples. On their assent he continues, 

Therefore every scribe who hath been made a disciple to the kingdom 
of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth 
out of his treasure things new and old. 

The comparison reminds us of the commendation bestowed by 
Johanan ben Zacchai on Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, an eminent talmid 
("disciple"): "Eliezer is like a well plastered cistern that allows 
no drop of water to escape." x The ideal is identical though Mt's 
illustration, of the "householder" seems to be suggested by Jesus' 
application of the term to his disciples in the Mission of the Twelve 
(Mt 10:25). 

Again R has provided no preface to state his object and his quali- 
fications for the task assumed. It was needless. At the close of the 
entire work he has made his purpose and ideal clear in Jesus' final 
words addressed to the Eleven as they are sent forth on their mission 
to evangelize the world. They are to convey to men the message 
of salvation by "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
command you." 

Nearly all expositors of this Jewish-christian writing take note 
of its neo-legalistic conception of "the gospel" and its effort to 
perpetuate the scribal system in the Church by bestowing on Peter 
an office corresponding to the presidency of a college of scribes 
(16:18 f.) and formulating for the Christian rabbi his principles of 
behavior in comparison with those of the teacher of the Synagogue 
(23:1-12). Still there was much occasion for giving precision to the 
somewhat vague outline and further backing to the proof when in 
1928 von Dobschtitz supplied the article already referred to entitled 

1 Sayings of the, Fathers, II, 11. 

131 



132 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

"Matthaus als Rabbi und Katechet." 2 In this article the careful 
student will find a summary of the traits which justify the terms 
applied. Mt is "a converted rabbi." His ideal, his methods, his 
stereotyped phraseology, his delight in numerical groupings, his 
proverbial sayings, all show the characteristics of the trained teacher 
of the Synagogue. He has become a Church catechist; but he has 
not discarded the methods of his training nor greatly altered its 
ideals. It is true that his mother-tongue is neither Hebrew nor Ara- 
maic. But that does not prevent his Gospel from being "Hebraic 
to the core." If one can imagine an Edersheim whose Bible is not 
the Hebrew text but the King James Version, one can picture the 
better this rabbi of the close of the first century firmly rooted to 
his Greek Old Testament side by side with his two Greek records of 
the sayings and doings of the Lord, and "bringing out of his treasure 
things new and old." 

The thorough student who has leisure and patience to prove all 
things will gladly avail himself of such data as those listed by von 
Dobschutz in support of his characterization of R mt . Indeed every 
reader will wish to be informed where such statistics are available, 
for in each individual passage here ascribed to R there will be need of 
verification in respect to peculiarities of language, motive, and method. 
Fortunately the task is made easier by the strong propensity of Mt 
already noted to adopt from the sources he employs certain telling 
expressions such as the epithet "half-believer" (oKiyomaros) or the 
phrase "there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth," 
phrases which are thereafter repeated in stereotyped form. The 
recurrence of these (and they are in constant recurrence) is a strong 
indication of R's hand. Moreover the vast pains taken in over a 
century of minute study of the problem has furnished standard 
tables which need not here be transcribed, though a summary of 
results is indispensable. 

Much can be determined concerning the general characteristics 
of our first canonical evangelist by mere observation of the structure 
and salient traits of his compilation, and in particular his treatment 
of Mk. To a remarkable extent a consensus of critics has already been 
attained as to such characteristics as his neo-legalistic motive, his 
Jewish-christian mode of conceiving the gospel message, his bitter- 
ness toward "scribes and Pharisees" and the unbelievers of his own 
people, his emphasis on proof from the Scriptures, his apocalyptic 
type of eschatology and warnings of judgment to come, his special 
interest in moral regulation and discipline in the Church, particu- 
larly forgiveness as between brethren, his insistence upon "good 
works" as the criterion between true and false teachers as well as 

2 ZNW, XXXVII, 3/4 (1928), pp. 338-348. 



TRAITS OF THE REDACTOR 133 

the only dependence for salvation in the coming day of messianic 
judgment, his fear and hatred of the teachers of "lawlessness." 3 
All these characteristics have been already amply illustrated, and 
are indeed matters of general consent. No further proof of this 
unanimity should be required than a comparison in various Com- 
mentaries and critical works of those passages which by common 
consent are designated redactional (R). At the same time to read 
these supplements, colophons, and corrections consecutively cannot 
fail to produce a vivid sense of unity, the conviction that our rela- 
tively late and wholly unknown evangelist is more than a skilful 
compiler and editor. He has blended diverse elements together into 
a unit, a whole which is more than a mosaic. It has both a pattern 
and a spirit of its own. 

Nevertheless critical agreement is 'not a sufficient demonstration, 
and the agreement itself is not unqualified. A criterion is still lacking 
to the demonstration and one of special value because of its objec- 
tivity, the criterion of style and language. R mt has not only dis- 
tinctive traits of motive and character, distinctive methods of afrange- 
ment, selection, and treatment of his material, but a distinctive style, 
vocabulary, and phraseology. Once these have been adequately 
studied and an approximation to unanimity attained sufficient to 
guarantee the impartiality of the standard, coincidence of these 
results with those obtained on other grounds will enable us to say 
with reasonable confidence of this disputed passage or that, "This 
has, or has not, flowed from the pen of R, the redactor himself." 
For more than half a century the evidence has accumulated, one 
scholar after another adding items to the list. Of German studies 
none is more thorough or convincing than Wernle's. 4 The most recent, 
convenient, and objective in English are those of Sir John Hawkins 
in the second edition of HS. We shall avail ourselves chiefly of 
these. 

As before, in the case of determination of Q, Sir John himself is 
first to warn against too mechanical an application of his own data. 
Reliable criticism is not to be based on word-counting alone, it 
seeks through the letter acquaintance with the spirit. It is not enough 
to learn through the concordance that Mt has a special fondness 
for diKcuos and connected terms such as Swcaiow and Suiaiocrvvr} ; one 
must appreciate the relation of this fact to his constant emphasis 

3 Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, Vol. I. 
"Age of the Tannaim, " p. 92: "They (the Nazarenes) were as averse as the rabbis 
themselves to its antinomian trend." The reference is to the "acute Helleniza- 
tion" of Greek Christianity. 

4 Synopt. Frage, 1899, pp. 109-195. Since the above was written Schlatter has 
contributed the exhaustive study of Der Evangelist Matthdus (1929). See Ap- 
pended Note VII. 



134 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

upon a type of moral and religious teaching in which the impending 
messianic judgment based upon "good works" occupies the fore- 
ground. To know what the term "righteousness" means to R has 
an important bearing on his attachment of a supplementary clause 
"and his righteousness" to the Q exhortation "Seek ye first the 
kingdom of God" (6:33; cf. Lk 12:31). We realize, as we bring this 
slight supplement into line with the whole series of similar supple- 
ments throughout the Gospel, culminating in the great closing scene 
of the Messianic Judgment, 25:31-46, that what Mt means by this 
"righteousness" of God, the thing to be sought next to the kingdom 
as the chief end of life, is not so much the likeness of sons to the Father 
which is the theme of the Q discourse, but the approval of God which 
gives assurance of acquittal in the day of judgment. As has been 
acutely observed the term 8iKaio<rbvri in Mt can in most cases be 
best rendered "Salvation." (See Appended Note X.) S looks inward 
for his definition, R looks forward. 

Words, then, must be not only counted but weighed and interpreted 
for quality of meaning and purpose of application. With this object 
in view, and leaving particular application of the data to our special 
Introductions, we may group together some of the statistics furnished, 
indicative of the individual characteristics and predilections of R mt . 

1. One of the most important to determine of these is his mother- 
tongue. Greek, no doubt, but is he not equally at home in Aramaic, 
or Hebrew, or both? However Jewish in feeling, origin, and attitude 
toward Scripture, the language in which R seems to feel most at home 
is that in which he writes, from whose written sources he draws, 
the language into which he translates for his readers' benefit even 
such words of Hebrew and Aramaic as Emmanuel (1:23), Golgotha 
(27:33) and Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (27:46). In the last two cases 
he is transcribing Mk, though in. most cases he simply avoids the use 
of Markan Aramaisms such as Boanerges (Mk 3:17). Talitha qumi 
(Mk 5:41), qorban (Mk 7:11), Bar-Timaeus (Mk 10:46), and even 
Abba (Mk 14:36). It is perhaps an oversight that he fails to clarify 
the sense of the angel's command to name the child "Jesus" in 
1:21 by explaining its meaning to be "savior," just as we may sup- 
pose it to be in 27:6 where he tolerates Kopfiavav, avoided in tran- 
scribing Mk 7:11. But it is hard to imagine a Christian milieu with- 
out sufficient linguistic knowledge to understand 1 :21 unaided. 

From the fact that R makes the Greek Gospel of Mk and a Greek 
version of the discourses of Jesus his two principal sources we might 
expect the Bible in his own hands and assumed to be in the hands 
of his readers to be, as in fact it is, the Septuagint version (LXX). 
However, certain exceptions require to be noted, because critics are 
by no means of one mind as to their significance. We refer to a cer- 



TRAITS OF THE REDACTOR 135 

tain number of his Scripture quotations, which seem to be inde- 
pendent of the Septuagint. 

Variations from the standard LXX text may have different causes. 
They may be due (a) to editorial adaptation, usually explicable with- 
out difficulty from the context; or (b) to the freedom of memoriter 
citation on the part either of the evangelist or the source employed; 
or (c) there may be dissimilarity from the LXX, with or without 
affinity to the Hebrew, explicable on neither of the two grounds 
just mentioned. This third class of variations is important because 
of its rarity and in some cases may make it probable that the writer's 
reliance was on the Hebrew Bible, a fact which if demonstrable has 
great significance. 

The group of quotations in Mt belonging to this third type has 
been claimed since Jerome's time as evidence that R mt himself 
resorted as a rule to the Hebrew text. Allen, on the contrary, points 
out (ICC, p. Ixii) that 

(a) in the quotations borrowed by him from Mk the editor shows a 
tendency to assimilate the language more closely to the LXX. The single 
exception of change in favor of the Hebrew is Mk 12:30=Mt 22:37. For 
such assimilation, see Mt 13:15 KOL Ido-opai avrovs for Mk's KOI dfadrj 
avroTs; Mt 15:8 6 Aaos OUTOS for Mk's oSros 6 Aaos; Mt 19:5 adds KOI 
(7rpoo-/coAA?70>7(reTai) rfj yvvatKi avrov- Mt 22:32 adds dpi; Mt. 26:31 adds 
rrjs TToijjuvrjs. So LXX A (i.e., Cod. Alexandrinus), Mt 27:46 ira rt for ets ri. 

(6) In nine quotations not borrowed from Mk, viz. 4:4, 7, 10; 5:21, 27, 
38, 43a; 9:13 = 12:7; 21:16, there is a general agreement with the LXX, 
except in KOI ov, 9:13 = 12:7, which agrees with Heb. and LXX AQ (Codd. 
Alexandrinus and Marchalianus) against LXX B (Cod. Vaticanus). 

From this evidence Allen infers that the quotations which show 
influence from the Hebrew are borrowed. Contrariwise Soltau, in a 
very thorough discussion in ZNW,'l (1900), pp. 219-248 comes to 
the conclusion that a distinction must indeed be recognized, but 
that the writer who shows acquaintance with the Hebrew and in 
other respects manifests a more narrowly Jewish-christian point of 
view is he who molds the work to its present form, to whom we 
must therefore apply the designation R; whereas the main substance 
of the Gospel is a blend of Mk with S, a composition of more Hellen- 
istic type to which R has prefixed this Preamble and attached at 
somewhat ill-chosen places a series of supplements and Scripture 
fulfilments grouped together in the present volume under the designa- 
tion N. Streeter's conjectured M source for Mt would correspond 
fairly to Soltau's Mt u . 

We shall have occasion in our Special Introduction to the Preamble 
and in Appended Note VII to decide between these two possibili- 
ties. In the meantime it will be universally agreed that the writer 



136 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

who combines Mk with S has Greek for his mother-tongue, perhaps 
is really master of no other. At least he attempts no correction of 
Mk's erroneous treatment of axrawa, which Mk construes with a 
dative as if an ascription of praise like Hallelujah. Mt transfers this 
misconstruction to his pages unchanged. Leaving for later considera- 
tion the question of a possible N source and its nature and relation 
to Mk on the one side and to R mt on the other, we may endorse and 
even re-enforce the arguments of Allen in favor of a compiler of the 
other two sources who, however Jewish-minded hi other particulars, 
was a Greek-speaking Christian with thoroughly "catholic" sym- 
pathies. 

For even the slight exception noted by Allen to his general rule that 
R assimilates the quotations he borrows from Mk to the LXX loses 
force in view of the fact that the passage quoted, being from the 
Shem'a, could not be expected to take any other form than that of 
the evangelist's daily use. Thus the mere substitution of kv for &e 
in Mt 22:37 could have no significance; for in words so familiar it is 
improbable that the transcriber's pen would be guided by anything 
save common use and wont. 

But also, under Allen's list (a) of Markan scripture quotations 
assimilated to LXX by Mt certain further items of considerable 
importance should be added. Thus in 19:18 f. Mt is careful to bring 
Mk's loose citation of Ex. 20:12-16 into more exact agreement with 
LXX. Again in 27:34 he inserts pera xoX^s to bring that of Mk 
15:23 into closer agreement with Ps. 68:22 LXX. 

Under (6) also the evidence is stronger than Allen makes apparent. 
For R not only constructs his genealogy, as Allen shows, by use of 
the LXX, but depends on the LXX for his proof of the Virgin Birth 5 
(1:23), as well as for extensive quotations made on his own account. 
These are 13:14 f., coincident throughout its total of 48 words with 
the LXX, 6 and 21 :16, whose 7 words also all coincide with the LXX. 

For Allen's theory of the "eleven quotations introduced by a 
formula" we must refer the reader to our Appended Note V. His 
results, so far as they bear on the general question of the language 
of R's Bible, are as follows: "Scripture" means to R the Greek Old 
Testament. Traces of the Hebrew text remain in some of his quota- 
tions, most of these being found in the preliminary story of the Nativ- 
ity but some later in the Gospel. This, however, is not because R mt 
himself resorts to the Hebrew but because he has taken his quota- 
tions from other sources just as he takes them from Mk, that is, with- 
out alteration except where special interest dictated the change. 

6 See below, Chapter XI. 

6 Hawkins (HS, p. 156) counts one of these 48 as " not in LXX." Even this 
exception is doubtful. Some texts of LXX show absolute agreement. 



TRAITS OF THE REDACTOR 137 

R mt translates, or transcribes, quotations along with the context, 
though naturally he falls easily into the LXX wording, especially 
in the more familiar passages. In other words the Hebraisms occa- 
sionally found in the quotations of Mt are there in spite of R's tend- 
encies and not because of them. 

The importance of this observation lies in the fact that we can now 
use the traces of influence from the Hebrew in quotations as an evi- 
dence for the identification of sources, and these sources more prob- 
ably written than oral. 

Application of this test to the quotations of S as a whole may be 
deferred to our Appended Note V, leaving for consideration here only 
the most salient example, the quotation from Mai. 3:1 given in 
identical terms not only in Q (Mt ll:10 = Lk 7:27) but also hi Mk 
1 :2, where it forms the only exception among more than 70 instances 
to the rule that in Mk quotations are based on the LXX. 

The Q quotation is made freely, and from memory. This may be 
inferred from the blending in it of elements from Ex. 23:20, and 
from the use of terms independent of the LXX. Mk is here clearly 
drawing from S. This appears from the fact that he does not know 
the real source of the passage quoted, but mistakenly ascribes it 
to "Isaiah." He also misapplies it to mean that the Baptist pre- 
pares the way for Jesus. From this secondary form we may turn, 
then, to the primary. In this case we have freedom of quotation, 
without dependence on LXX phraseology, and in addition a sug- 
gestion that in its original form S used the Hebrew text; for /carao-- 
Kevavei (Mt, Mk, Lk) "shall set in order" is certainly closer to the 
Hebrew than tmfi\tyeTai (LXX) "shall look over." Other Q quo- 
tations are indecisive. 

The case for influence from the Hebrew is much clearer where the 
series of quotations is considered which begins with the Nativity 
group and continues at intervals throughout the Gospel of Mt in its 
Markan sections. German critics have termed it the series of Re- 
flexionscitate. To this group is due the impression that R's quota- 
tions are drawn from the Hebrew text. The formula by which they 
are commonly introduced is "Now this took place that the word might 
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet," or the like. From 
this the inference has been hastily drawn that Mt used a collection 
of "Testimonies" similar to those we know to have been current in 
the second and third centuries. Of course if these quotations are 
indeed based on the Hebrew text while R himself uses the LXX some 
outside source must have supplied them; nor would a merely oral 
source suffice. The question of its nature and type remains for sepa- 
rate discussion in our Special Introduction to the Preamble. In the 
meantime the evidence already considered is sufficient to establish 



138 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

a rule which might have been expected a priori. The scripture quo- 
tations of R mt are from the Bible of his own and his readers' mother- 
tongue, the Septuagint. Those which he draws from Mk are almost 
invariably based on the Greek, and in certain cases are even assimi- 
lated to it more closely. The quotations which R draws from S 
seem to show in some cases surviving traces of use of the Hebrew 
text. The quotations which he draws from the source to which we 
have applied the designation N show such influence quite unmis- 
takably. Such traces of the Hebrew text tend of course to be sub- 
merged by LXX phraseology because writers as familiar with the 
language of the Greek Bible as our evangelists would find it hard 
either to translate quotations from the Old Testament or even trans- 
cribe them from another's translation, without lapsing continually 
into the familiar phraseology of their own Bible. Any who have 
tried translating a passage from the French or German Bible will 
know how easy it is to slip into the familiar wording of the Authorized 
or Revised Version. Such ground as we have for regarding a given 
citation as derived from S or N comes from the degree of coloration 
from the Hebrew which R mt has permitted to remain. 

2. Sections II-IV in Hawkins' discussion deal with "The Shorten- 
ing of Narratives in Mt" (pp. 158-160), "Signs of Compilation in 
Mt" (pp. 161-163), and "Traces of Numerical Arrangement" (pp. 
163-167), It is more important to supplement Section V on "The 
Transference and Repetition of Formulas" (pp. 168-173) than to 
delay upon characteristics that are well known. No less than fifteen 
instances of Mt's tendency to repeat his own phrases are listed by 
Sir John, and to these are added, on p. 171, nineteen (!) borrowed 
"formulas" adopted from the sources. We may quote the comment: 

A careful examination of such cases certainly leaves the impression 
that the mind of Mt was so familiar with these collocations of words that 
he naturally reproduced them in other parts of his narrative, besides the 
places in which they occurred in his sources. It is to be observed that these 
apparent reproductions often occur earlier in the Gospel than do the ap- 
parently original occurrences of the formulas, which seems to indicate 
that Mt drew them from his memory of his sources and not from docu- 
ments before him. 

The inference drawn by von Dobschiitz from this little-noted 
phenomenon is also just. R mt transfers to Christian writings as a 
catechist the same methods as characterize the rabbi. 

The five-fold "transition link" by which R mt leads over at the 
close of each Book from discourse to narrative is the most conspicuous 
example of this "stereotyping" habit, and merits some further at- 
tention from its typical character. Its first occurrence is at the end 



TRAITS OF THE REDACTOR 139 

of the first Discourse (Mt 7:28), where it occupies a position in 
strict parallelism with Lk 7:1, which leads forward after the same 
discourse. As proof that it is not originated but "borrowed" by Mt 
Sir John observes that "tyi-vero followed by a finite verb is only 
found in these 5 places in Mt, while it occurs 22 times in Lk (also 
twice in Mk and nowhere else in New Testament) ." 7 The case is 
strengthened when we observe that the /3 text of Lk 7:1 has exactly 
the same form as Mt adopts in all five "transition links," /cat kykvero 



Mt makes slight changes in this formula to adapt it to the indi- 
vidual context. He does the same with other phrases borrowed from 
both Mk and Q. Thus "kingdom of God" is changed (with rabbinic 
avoidance of the divine name) to "kingdom of heaven"; but in four 
cases the original is retained because change would have altered the 
sense. Hence we have "kingdom of God" in Mt 12:28; 19:24; 21:31 
and43. 8 Mt adopts in ll:13=Lk 16:16 the phrase "the prophets 
and the Law" and continues to use it in the Lukan form "Law and 
prophets" in 5:17; 7:12, and 22:40. He does likewise with the epi- 
thet oAi/yoTTtoTos, 9 which he borrows from S in 6:30=Lk 12:28 and 
continues to use in 8:26; 14:31, and 16:8, not to mention oAr/on-torta 
in 17 :20. Especially congenial to his feeling is the phrase descriptive 
of the disappointed envy of the excluded sons of the kingdom in the 
parable of the Near-shut Door (Mt 8:11 f. = Lk 13:28) "there shall 
be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." This is repeated in 13 :42, 
50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30. In this case we can be sure that the repe- 
tition is due to the phrase-making of R mt , for the gesture of jealous 
rage, gnashing of teeth, is appropriate in the original first instance, 
but inappropriate in the later ones. Other kindred phrases applying 
to the punishment of the wicked which R takes up and repeats are 
"hewn down and cast into the fire" (repeated from 3:10=Lk 3:9 
in 7:19), or "cast into the furnace of fire" (13:42, 50; cf. 25:41). 
Obviously the stereotyped formula has no small importance as a 
note of identification applicable to R. 

3. Words and phrases "characteristic" of Mt are defined in HS 
(p. 3) to be such as "occur at least four times in this Gospel," and 
are either (a) "not found at all in Mk or Lk," or (b) "found in Mt at 
least twice as often as in Mk and Lk together." Of such 95 are col- 
lected, classified, and tabulated by Sir John on pp. 3-9, as against 
151 hi Lk and 41 in Mk. Mt is not a finished writer or Greek stylist 
such as Lk, yet he shows himself quite competent to handle ef- 

7 We should observe, however that Mt allows the Semitic construction /cai 
iytvero teal with finite verb to stand in 9:10. 

8 Also in 6:33 in inferior Mss. 

9 Overlooked in Hawkins' list, but see his p. 6. 



140 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

fectively the simple variety of wivi) Greek current in Syria, and 
to exercise a kind of editorial improvement on the relatively rude 
style of Mk. 

However, not all of these "characteristic" words are Mt's own. 
As with the borrowed formulas the distribution proves that some 
should be credited originally to Mt's sources. Mk is of course ex- 
cluded from the survey by Hawkins' definition of "characteristic," 
also those portions of S included under Q. But portions of S peculiar 
to Mt, such as the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 
5:17-43), may have furnished their quota, as well as the source N of 
which we have no trace outside of Mt. Indeed the contribution of 
N is so marked that Sir John in his HS tables reserves a special col- 
umn for the 48 verses of chapters 1-2. The remainder of Mt's "single 
tradition" contains about 290 verses. Two of the three Remarks 
subjoined by Sir John to his carefully prepared tables are so signifi- 
cant on this point of distinguishing between words "characteristic" 
of Mt because supplied from his own vocabulary and words adopted 
from possible sources that they may be here transcribed verbatim. 

- B 

Chapters 1-2 contain 48 of the 1,068 verses of this Gospel, i.e., only 
about one twenty-second part of the whole. But they contain considerably 
more than one-ninth of the occurrences of the "characteristic" words 
and phrases, viz. 107 out of 904. This is partly accounted for by the use 
of yevvdco 40 times in the genealogy; but even if those 40 items are de- 
ducted from both numbers, chapters 1-2 are found to contain upwards of 
one-thirteenth of such occurrences, viz. 67 out of 864. It appears, then, 
that these "characteristic" words and phrases are used considerably more 
freely in these two chapters than in the rest of the book. 

C 

Taking the whole of the "peculiar" or unparalleled matter in this Gos- 
pel, including chapters 1-2, it fills about 338 out of the 1,068 verses, i.e., 
less than one-third, which would be 356 verses. It thus appears that the 
occurrences of "characteristic" words and phrases are very much more 
abundant in the "peculiar" than in the "common" portions of the Gos- 
pel; for there are 482 of them in the "peculiar" division and only 422 
of them in the "common" division, while the latter is more than twice 
as large as the former. 

It should be observed, however, that several of the words which do 
most in producing this predominance (e.g., oTroStSw/xt, ya/xos, yevvaca, taviov, . 
o/ii/va), ToXavrov) are words which are required by the subject-matter, and 
which therefore are not important as evidences of style. 

Clearly these two Remarks both favor the hypothesis of a special 
source for Mt, and not merely an oral source, since oral tradition 



TRAITS OF THE REDACTOR 141 

would scarcely be reflected in distinctions of style. The distribution, 
so largely aggregating the peculiarities in chapters 1-2, is not in- 
compatible with Soltau's theory identifying N with R, but as we shall 
see when comparison is made between the "characteristic" words 
and phrases of chapters 1-2 and those of the supplements attached 
to narrative sections throughout the Gospel, the phenomena point 
rather to a particular source, oral or written. This comparison may 
be made more conveniently in the Special Introduction to the Pre- 
amble. 

A careful study of the table of "characteristic" Matthean words 
and phrases on pp. 4-8 of HS will enable the reader to make a further 
distinction of value for the determination of R. Disregarding "stereo- 
typed" phrases there are 14 of the total of 95 "characteristic" words 
and phrases which Sir John has distinguished by an asterisk as 
specially significant. Of these a few, such as the connective phrase 
r6re o'tyo-ous, show by their general distribution throughout the 
Gospel and their grammatical nature that they should be con- 
sidered strictly characteristic of R himself, as against others which 
he may have taken over from S or N. These few we may well enu- 
merate with some comment in addition to that supplied by Sir John 
to most of them on pp. 30-34. Among the 14 specified the following 
appear to characterize especially the compiler of the Gospel: dvaxcopeco, 
jSacriXeta T&V ovpav&v, i8ov after gen. absolute, \ey6ij.evos, used with 
names, Ilar^p applied to God with possessive pronoun or adjectival 
distinction, TrXr/pow used of Scriptures, Trpoo-epxo/ucu, pfjQkv (and once 
prideis), TI croi, or vfuv, doKcl',, rare, vTroKpirrjs and oxnrep. Some of 
these are merely favorite words or tricks of style; others such as 
Ilarf/p obpavios, /3a<rtXeia r&v obpav&v, irXr/poco and VTTOKPLT^S, may have a 
bearing on the evangelist's doctrine or environment. All are service- 
able for the differentiation of R from his material. The task is a 
delicate one, and in disputed cases calls for both tact and scholar- 
ship. We may conclude our discussion of its applicability by a typ- 
ical example. 

Very different views are taken of the relative originality of the 
Lord's Prayer in its briefer Lukan form, consisting of five petitions, 
or its longer, Matthean form, which has seven. B. Weiss, for example, 
will not allow the possibility which others contend for that R mt 
should venture in so sacred a context to extend the form which he 
found in S by introducing interpretative clauses such as "Thou 
who art in heaven," or "thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth," 
or "but deliver us from evil." In such disputed cases it is well to 
apply the test of "characteristic" words and phrases. The result 
is expressed by Sir John in a parenthetic comment attached on 
p. 32 to his discussion of the "characteristic" Matthean phrase 



142 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

6 TTovrjpbs or r6 irovijpdv "of the evil one" or "evil." The comment is 
as follows: 

We have now seen that the parts of the Lord's Prayer which are peculiar 
to Mt contain three expressions which are "characteristic" of him, viz. 
yevi^ro), TLarfip 6 ev TOIS oupavois and this one (TOV irovi/ipov). 



Application of the test of Language and Style would seem to de- 
mand a certain revision of the rule which maintains that R mt re- 
pressed his redactional activity where logia of the Lord were con- 
cerned; also of the theory that variants in the Matthean from the 
Lukan form of Q must be ascribed, if the Lukan form be really the 
more authentic, not to R mt himself, but to a hypothetical M, com- 
poser of an intermediate form of S. The test of Language and Style 
points to R mt himself as personally responsible. 



PART II 
SPECIAL INTRODUCTION 



CHAPTER XI 
THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 

THE Gospel of Mk has been well described as "the prolongation 
backward of Paul's 'word of the cross. 7 " Its object, like Paul's, is 
to present Jesus as the glorified Son of God, but the means employed 
is to trace the steps which led up to the great tragedy. Such account 
as it once gave of the rise of the resurrection faith has disappeared, 
eclipsed by other narratives more serviceable to primitive apologetic. 
All the Gospels follow the general outline of Mk, which doubtless 
represents, as claimed by early tradition, the substance of Peter's 
preaching and testimony. The notable point, whose bearing on the 
preliminary chapters of Mt will soon appear, is that the story is 
developed backward. In the perspective of our evangelists the "word 
of the cross" is the starting point. From it they carry their report 
as far back as the witness of Peter permits. They even peer into the 
mists of the thirty or more unknown years, using a constructive 
imagination based on their knowledge of Jesus and their belief in his 
divine vocation. Always the glory of the resurrection vision casts 
its ray backward into the deepening obscurity. 

The common starting point is best expressed by Paul at the outset 
of his exposition of his "gospel" (Rom. 1:1-4). Jesus, who according 
to the flesh had a certain claim to the messianic throne, seeing he was 
lineally descended from David, was miraculously revealed as the 
Son of God by the fact that God raised him from the dead. This, 
in the language of contemporary religious propaganda, would be 
called Paul's witness to the Epiphany of the Savior-god he preached. 
The phenomenon we have now to describe might be called the reces- 
sion of the Epiphany-gospel with the development of tradition. 

The same starting point is shown by Lk. For Acts 13:33 and 17:31 
certainly give a true picture, not of Paul's earlier preaching only 
but of the common gospel of all primitive evangelists, when it repre- 
sents Paul as declaring at Pisidian Antioch and before the Athenian 
Areopagus that "God hath given assurance unto all men" of the 
appointment of that messianic world-judge who is presently to ap- 
pear "in that He hath raised him from the dead." One need only 
compare Paul's own description of his missionary preaching to the 
Thessalonians, whom he persuaded "to turn from idols to serve a 
living and true God, and to wait for His Son from Heaven" (I Thess. 

145 



146 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

1:10) to see how true a picture of the primitive oral gospel Lk has 
drawn. The Epiphany supports the Eschatology. 

Peter's preaching in Acts 2-3 and 10:36-43 has indeed, as we 
should expect, a larger element of retrospect over Jesus' ministry 
in Galilee and Jerusalem; but here too the message is the word of the 
cross (10:39-42). The rest is incidental. 

The Christology depicted in this apostolic preaching is a Son-of- 
Man doctrine, proved after the manner of I Cor. 15:1-7, where again 
it is expressly declared by Paul to be not his testimony alone, but 
that of all the witnesses. This description, like the others, centers 
upon an Epiphany of the Son of God "manifested" as such by the 
resurrection. Nor does it appear to have been thought needful at 
this early period to carry this divine "manifestation" further back. 
The beginnings of the process by which this Epiphany gospel re- 
cedes further and further in Synoptic story appear in the haggada >. 
(presentation by "tale") of the Transfiguration. 

In the story of the Transfiguration vision and Voice from Heaven 
the Epiphany gospel still stands connected with the resurrection. 
Indeed traces remain in the Apocalypse of Peter and elsewhere of a 
time when this "revelation" to Peter and his fellow-disciples was 
coincident in date with the story of how Peter, after the tragedy of 
Calvary, "turned again" and "rallied his brethren," In the Apoc- 
alypse of Peter the "manifestation" is given after the catastrophe, 
to confirm the nascent faith of the disciples. But Mk and its two 
satellite Gospels carry back this vision-story to precede the journey 
to martyrdom. The manifestation is now given to confirm the still 
wavering faith of the disciples who have just acknowledged Jesus 
as "the Christ" and have been staggered by his prediction of the 
cross. Its function, therefore, is identical with that of the vision- 
story which introduces the career of Jesus as a whole, when he re- 
ceives by vision and Voice from heaven his calling to be the Son of 
God, and in the Temptations repels false expectations of this calling. 

Like the baptismal Epiphany the Transfiguration apocalypse 
gives preliminary interpretation to the story which is to follow. 
Those who receive the revelation on the "holy mount" are, of course, 
not Jesus himself, who has no need of it, but those who, after his 
"taking up," are to proclaim him as the glorified Son of God. For 
this reason they are forbidden to speak of it "till the Son of Man be 
risen from the dead." Also we observe that the transfiguration 
Epiphany corresponds much more closely than the Vocation vision 
with that Son-of-Man Christology which we have seen to characterize 
the apostolic preaching. Placed as now it carries back to the begin- 
ning of the journey to martyrdom the "manifestation of the Son of 
God." By this special revelation and Voice from heaven the disciples 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 147 

are given their message in advance, in order that their faith may be 
sustained for the impending ordeal, and that afterwards they may be 
able to testify that their witness to the resurrection was no mere 
afterthought to counteract the scandal of the cross, but had been 
given them from heaven from the first days 1 after their acknowledg- 
ment of Jesus as "the Christ." 

But the Epiphany of the Son of God is carried still further back, 
in terms but slightly changed, when need arises. The Sonship is now 
to be proved by the earlier career of Jesus in Galilee. This was "after 
the baptism which John preached," a period unmentioned by Paul, 
a period of preaching and wonder-working attested, it would seem, 
chiefly, if not solely, by the witness of Peter. 

The story of the Galilean ministry has therefore also its Epiphany. 
Jesus' public work is prefaced by an account similar to that of the 
i ancient prophets, wherein the messenger of God relates in terms of 
vision and Voice from heaven his vocation to his mission. Jesus' 
religious experience at the baptism of John, an experience which had 
resulted in his taking up the mission of the imprisoned prophet, 
is similarly related as "the beginning of the gospel." Whether by 
intimation from himself or by inference from the known facts of his 
career, the primitive tradition relates that Jesus' baptism by John 
had been accompanied by a Voice from heaven proclaiming him God's 
"Son." This, then, marks a second stage in the recession of the 
Epiphany gospel. 

How much could be known of Jesus' inward experience in the 
period preceding the disciples' association with him is a question 
about which interpreters will differ, but there can be no disagree- 
ment as to the purpose with which the primitive evangelist has thus 
prefaced his story in the S q narrative. The account of Jesus' vision 
at the baptism of John, the divine summons "Thou art my Son, 
the Beloved; upon thee my choice was fixed from eternity" is in- 
tended (especially in the secondary forms which use Ps. 2:7, or 
address the Baptist or the bystanders) as a miraculous "manifesta- 
tion of the Son of God," whose story is thereupon related. In S, 
then, as well as in the Via Crucis of Markan narrative, the record was 
prefaced by its own Epiphany, the Vocation of Jesus by vision and 
Voice from heaven. 

A third, still later stage in the process of recession of the Epiphany 
is represented by the prefixed chapters of Mt and Lk which supple- 
ment Mk's narrative. In diverse ways, by the use of similar but 
independent legends of the finding of the heaven-sent child who re- 

1 "Six days" (Lk "about eight days") is the Synoptic period of preparation 
for the Epiphany. In the Johannine version (Jn 1:19-2:11) we appear to have a 
corresponding hexaemeron leading up to the "manifestation." 



148 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

deems the world to peace and righteousness, Mt and Lk carry it back 
to Jesus' birth. The annunication is now made by angels instead of 
God's own voice, while accompanying miracles in heaven and on 
earth meet the ever-increasing demand for supernatural attestation. 
However, in the nativity gospels it is no longer thought needful to 
explain the silence between the heavenly proclamation and its pro- 
mulgation to the world. No divine command imposes secrecy upon 
the witnesses, as in the Transfiguration vision (Mk 9:9 and parallels). 
The Magians return to their own country, the shepherds of Bethlehem 
are too obscure to find acceptance for their report; the rest merely 
"lay up these things in their hearts" against a day when super- 
natural credentials may be demanded. Only to the critic do the 
"thirty years of silence" remain a disturbing gap in the story, espe- 
cially when, as in Mt 3:1, it passes, as if without a break, from nativ- 
ity to baptism, beginning its transcript of Mk with the words "And 
in those days cometh John the Baptist." To the critic this unbridged 
interval bears witness of the late date of the supplement; for even 
Lk can find but a single touching incident of Jesus 7 boyhood to relate, 
leaving free play in all the rest of the thirty years for the grotesque 
fancies of the apocryphal Gospels of the Infancy. 

The prefixed gospels of the Nativity thus constitute a problem in 
themselves. Why this still further recession of the Epiphany? Whence 
have the circles represented by Mt 1-2 and Lk 1-3 drawn their 
symbolic figures? 

A motive which goes at least part way toward accounting for these 
prefatory chapters is the correction of false beliefs. At a very early 
date, certainly within the limits of the first century, Mk's account 
of "the beginning of the gospel" had been found unsatisfactory. At 
least the Syrian church found it lacking in two respects: (1) It re- 
pelled the more Jewish-minded by treating well-established belief 
in the Davidic descent of Jesus no less slightingly than Paul, who, 
though he admits the fact, dismisses it as a mere concern of "the 
flesh" (Rom. 1:3). To Mk likewise the Son-of-David Christology 
is obnoxious, the notion of the royal pedigree a mere unfounded 
dogma of "the scribes" (Mk 12:35 ff.). But Christians of Jewish 
descent in Syria were not content to see the claim thus abandoned. 
They would retain it in a moral and symbolic sense, even if they 
appropriated a story of virgin birth which logically deprived it of 
other significance. Both Mt and Lk, accordingly, in adopting a birth- 
epiphany whose motive we must presently consider, prefix a geneal- 
ogy of Joseph which explains the references of Paul and Mk to the 
title "Son of David " applied to Jesus (Rom. 1:3; Mk 10:47 f.). 
Each of the two pedigrees traces Joseph's ancestry to David, but 
curiously enough, by inconsistent lines. 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 149 

(2) More serious dissatisfaction with Mk was felt by those con- 
cerned to maintain a right doctrine of divine Sonship. Mk gave too 
ready a foothold for doctrines of a docetic or adoptionist type, doc- 
trines already current in the Greek-speaking church before the close 
of the first century, which destroyed the value of the historical 
Jesus by explaining his career as due to temporary "control" by a 
Christ-spirit. Adoptionism, the doctrine that Jesus "became" the 
Son of God at his baptism, was specially prevalent at Rome. The 
Jew Cerinthus, according to Irenaeus, rested his docetism ("appari- 
tion " doctrine) on the Gospel of Mk, admitting no other, and main- 
taining that the Galilean mechanic had been merely the temporary 
"receptacle" of the heavenly Spirit, which before the end had again 
withdrawn from him. Mk certainly made it easy for the West to 
develop an Adoptionist Christology. As interpreted by Cerinthus 
it seemed even to teach that the beginning of Jesus' "control" by the 
Spirit had been at his baptism, after which, as pointed out by Cerin- 
thus, he "began to work miracles and to proclaim the unknown 
Father." Basilides, the reputed disciple of Menander at Antioch, 
preached a similar docetic heresy at Alexandria under Hadrian, and 
indeed it might well be said of the Gnostics generally that they 
preached a Christ who "came by water only, and not by water and 
by blood." Their doctrine did indeed lay all emphasis on incarna- 
tion, symbolized by baptism, to the neglect of atonement, sym- 
bolized by the sacrament of the cup. In terms of the festal calendar, 
which played an enormous part in the religious life of the times, the 
one great annual feast for Gnostics was the Epiphany, early cele- 
brated on the very date of the Epiphany of Dionysus the Hellenistic 
"savior-god" (Jan. 5/6), with ceremonies repeating those of the 
pagan ritual. Gnostics naturally ignored or belittled the festival 
taken over by the Church from the Synagogue, the Passover of the 
Lord, the annual feast of Redemption by the blood of the cross. 

With such heresies afloat the orthodox East could not well be 
satisfied with Mk's "beginning of the gospel." Specifically Gnostic 
heresy, it is true, can less easily be read between the lines of Synoptic 
than of Johannine literature. But "false prophets" and "false 
Christs," uttering the cry "I am" of the "control" and doing wonders 
to deceive even the elect, appear already on the horizon of Mk, and 
are still more conspicuous in Mt and Lk. The great doctrine at 
issue was that of divine Sonship, and gospel writers could not be too 
careful in their exposition of it. 

To preserve the authentic teaching of the apostles from Adop- 
tionism, Docetism, and kindred Gnosticizing heresies it was vital 
to show that the manifestation as Son of God covered Jesus' entire 
Me. The gospel record was not to be divided into a period of thirty 



150 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

or more years of normal existence at Nazareth followed by a single 
year of abnormal "control" by invisible agencies, agencies esteemed 
good or bad according as friend or foe interpreted the wonder-work- 
ing. The title, with all its implications, must belong to Jesus from 
birth. 

Here was an emphatic call for still further recession of the Epiphany 
gospel. Divine "epiphanies" of the type depicted in the infancy 
chapters of Mt and Lk were common in pagan story. Lk draws from 
one such, in origin traceable to Egypt. Lie's religious motive appears 
in the angelic promise, "therefore that holy thing that is born of thee 
shall be called 'the Son of God' " (Lk 1:35). Mt has a different 
epiphany from Lk as well as a different genealogy, but the motives 
are fundamentally the same. On the one hand Ebionite feeling must 
be conciliated, on the other Adoptionist heresy must be deprived of 
the weapon Mk's Gospel had made too easily available. The Son of 
Man must be proved from his very birth both Son of David and 
Son of God. 

Our fourth evangelist adds still another type of epiphany gospel. 
For Jn Jesus' own consciousness is that of prenatal existence as the 
eternal Logos. But an incredulous world demands supernatural 
guarantees. The witness begins, accordingly, with a divine revela- 
tion to the Baptist, which that prophet openly proclaims; next Jesus 
in person declares his true nature to a circle of intimates, and finally 
seals the assurance by the miracle at Cana, where, as Jn says, "he 
manifested his glory and his disciples believed on him." 

The Johannine Epiphany most of all bears unmistakable marks 
of derivation from pagan sources. Celebration of the miraculous 
change of water to wine at the date of the ^iojaysiac^epiphainy con- 
tinued in Nabatea and Decapolis down to the close of the fourth 
century. It was rebaptized and celebrated in Christian shrines 
which had supplanted those of "the Arabian god" (Dusares-Diony- 
sus) at Petra, Elysa, and Gerasa, stations on the Roman caravan 
route from Alexandria to Damascus and the East. Epiphanius chris- 
tianizes the pagan ceremonial here by declaring it an annual com- 
memoration of the miracle at Cana. At other ancient shrines of 
Dionysus the feast was similarly rebaptized, usually without change 
of date, so that "twelfth night" still remains that of Epiphany in 
our Christian calendars. 2 

The pagan derivation is more obvious in Jn 2:1-11 than in the 
epiphanies of Mt and Lk prefixed to Mk which the fourth evangelist 

2 The date seems to have been chosen in the Orient because after the night of 
Jan. 5/6 the earlier dawn first becomes observable after the winter solstice (Dec. 
25 according to the Julian calendar). In the Dionysiac ritual the celebrants 
hailed the "increase of light" (atfet 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 151 

aims to supersede, but it is also more necessary to the Johannine 
incarnation doctrine. In the case of Mt and Lk the primitive theme 
is the finding of the heaven-sent babe, a form of the myth which 
underlies the pagan ceremony described by Epiphanius as taking 
place annually on the eleventh of Tybi ( = Jan. 5/6) in the temple 
of the Virgin-mother (Kopeiov) at Alexandria, a ritual which may 
still be witnessed at Bethlehem today as the celebration of the Greek 
Christmas, just as Jerome found it practiced there late in the fourth 
century and recognized it as a survival from the heathen times of 
Hadrian. In the Lukan form shepherds are divinely directed to the 
cradle of the savior-god, in the Matthean the discoverers are astrol- 
ogers from "the East." Both evangelists employ myths of imme- 
morial antiquity. Celebration at Epiphany feasts made such con- 
tamination of the Christian tradition almost unavoidable. 

Of course to teachers of Jewish birth the gross stories of the amours 
of Zeus and other gods of the Greek pantheon would be abhorrent, 
but in the higher sense imposed on the myths by the better Hellenistic 
writers virgin birth could be ascribed to Emmanuel with no more 
offense than to the Christian of today. Thus Plutarch, a contem- 
porary of Mt and Lk, accepts parthenogenesis as a method of which 
divine power might well avail itself for bringing into the world a 
heaven-sent Redeemer. 3 Neither Jewish nor Christian scruples need 
shrink from a doctrine of the messiah's birth expressed in such terms 
as Plutarch employs. In the delicate language of Lk "that holy 
thing that is born" becomes a creation of the overshadowing power 
of the Most High, for "no word of His is void of power" (Lk 1:35- 
37; cf. Rom. 4:17-21; 9:6-9). 

The child thus born is, according to the myth, unknown. Its hiding 
place must be miraculously revealed to appointed guardians, and 
in the ritual this scene of the finding of the heaven-sent babe is 
dramatized. 4 The Lukan form, in which lowly shepherds are the 
medium of the divine revelation, has been traced by Gressmann and 
Norden to Alexandrian sources recast in pre-Christian times as epiph- 
anies of the messiah at Bethlehem. We have seen that the religious 
drama was enacted there under heathen control in Hadrian's time. 
The Matthean is clearly later than the Lukan. Its introduction of 
Magian astrologers from "the East," that is, of Perso-Babylonian 
origin, as recipients of the revelation, suggests connection with Jew- 

3 Vita Numae 4: "The Egyptians believe, not implausibly, that it is not im- 
possible for the Spirit of God to approach a woman and produce in her certain 
beginnings of parturition." 

4 In Jewish legend also the birth of the messiah is secret; "no man knoweth 
whence he is" (Jn 7:27). In rabbinic teaching (P. Volz, Judische Eschatologie, 
35, 3) and in apocalyptic vision (Rev. 12:5) the birthplace is on earth, the 
child is caught up to heaven. Hence his birth must be divinely "revealed. " 



152 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

ish, and later Jewish-christian, communities along the international 
highway to the Euphrates. 

The indication need not be pressed. The episode of the Magi and 
the Star is indeed distinctive of the Epiphany of Mt vs. that of Lk. 
But Magians, that is, astrologers, are the common resort of all authors 
of similar tales of the birth of heroes throughout the Near East. 
Thus Cicero reports the story (De divin. I, 47) that in the night when 
the temple of Diana at Ephesus was burned Alexander was born to 
Olympias (a supernatural birth by divine generation according to 
Egyptian legend) and when daylight broke "the magians cried out 
that the plague and bane of Asia had been born that night." The 
appearance of a new star in the heavens, a phenomenon calling for 
interpretation by the astrologers, is a frequent accompaniment of 
such birth tales, as in the case of Mithridates, Alexander Severus, 
and others. Again a historical event of 66 A.D. has been considered 
by some to throw more light on the possible origin of the legend of 
Mt 2:1-12. This was the delegation of Parthian "magians" under 
Tiridates to offer worship to Nero as Mithra-incarnate at Naples. 
The delegation doubtless passed through Edessa and Aleppo on its 
way, but took, we are told, another route on its return. The event 
had sufficient importance to excite remark from Pliny, Dio Cassius, 
and Suetonius. 

But mere general parallels such as these are of relatively small 
importance for the solution of our problem of Matthean origins. 
Belief was general in the appearance of astral phenomena which 
reveal to astrologers versed in Babylonian lore the birth of kings and 
heroes. What we need is evidence for the application of such beliefs 
by Jewish teachers to the nativity of their own great men. 

Evidence of this type is adduced by Nestle, 5 who cites first the 
passage Num. 23:7 (LXX) as a parallel to the vague expression of 
Mt 2:1 "magians from the East" The story is that of Balak's sum- 
mons of Balaam from "the East" (in both cases air' avaToK&v) , but 
in Num. 23:7 we have the parallel "from Aram" (k Meo-oTrora/uas). 
From "the top of the rocks and the hills" of this region of "the 
East" Balaam has discerned the victorious Star, to arise out of 
Jacob, and this, as we know, was regarded in Judea in 132 A.D. as a 
prediction of Bar Cochba the claimant to messiahship. Our Bibles 
of the Revised Version give as marginal references for the interpreta- 
tion of Mt's expression "the East" Gen. 25:6 and I Kings 4:30. 
Nestle is surely justified in maintaining that Num. 23:7 is much 
closer, and "should not hereafter be wanting in any commentary or 
edition of the text." 

Nestle cites also a story of the birth of Abraham from a late Jewish 

5 ZNW, VIII (1907), pp, 73 and 241. 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 153 

midrash, the Sefer Hayyashar, specially noted for its reflection of 
Arabian legend: 

On the night when he (Abraham) was born, Terah's friends, among 
whom were councillors and astrologers of Nimrod, were feasting in his 
house, and on leaving at night they observed a star, which swallowed up 
four other stars from the four sides of the heavens. They forthwith has- 
tened to Nimrod and said: "Of a certainty a lad has been born who is 
destined to conquer this world and the next. " 6 

The story continues with a plot of the magi with the tyrant to 
kill the child, which Terah frustrates by hiding his son in a cave for 
three years. 

Here, Nestle freely acknowledges, it is only "the soil on which 
both legends grew up " that can be indicated by the correspondence 
between the midrash and the Matthean birth story. This, however, as 
he adds, was " a Jewish soil." It would seem to have been a soil quite 
similar to that from which Ignatius derived his legend of the messi- 
anic star which "shone forth in the heaven above all the stars, whose 
light was unutterable and whose strangeness caused amazement." 
The soil is indeed Jewish, but far from impervious to pagan infiltra- 
tion. If in the second century the magian Balaam legend can suggest 
to the supporters of a Jewish false messiah the title "Son of the Star" 
it was still potent in the fifth century to imbue Christian legend with 
the story of how the Persian magi "knew the star" of Bethlehem. 

The Jewish origin of the nativity stories of Mt was more clearly 
shown by G. H. Box in his article in the ZNW for 1905 (VI, 1, pp. 
80-101) entitled "The Gospel Narratives of the Nativity and the 
alleged influence of Heathen Ideas." To this well-known authority 
the Preamble of Mt is an agglomerate from a single hand, "the 
compiler of the First Gospel." It "exhibits in a degree that can hardly 
be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament the characteristic 
features of Jewish Midrash or Haggada." 

Study of Box's data leaves no doubt that the episodes in ch. 2 
"display unmistakable midrashic features." Moreover the under- 
lying Jewish tales do belong to the legendary story of Moses rather 
than Abraham; for "the episode of the return from Egypt narrated 
in verses 20 and 21 is clearly modelled upon the LXX of Ex. 4:19, 20 
(the return of Moses from Midian to Egypt)." Box finds reasons 
indeed to question the contention of Wunsche and Schechter that 
the episode of the star is a "homiletical illustration of Num. 24:17 
('There shall come forth a star out of Jacob') which the Targumim 
(of Onkelos and of Jerusalem) refer to the star of the Messiah." But 
at least the targums prove that the roots of the Matthean Epiphany 

6 See Jewish Encycl, Vol I, p. 86. 



154 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

gospel extend to the Synagogue. It is the question of locality and 
date for this Jewish influence which interests us now, and on this 
point Box's final comment on Mt 2:19-23 especially merits our at- 
tention: 

The evangelist belonged to a Christian community whose members 
bore the common designation of Nazarene (the characteristically oriental 
name for Christian). ... It is worth noting also that the significance of 
the allusion to the dictum of the prophets "He shall be called a Nazarene" 
can only be elucidated by reference to the Hebrew messianic terms neg er, 
Gemah, and nazir. In the LXX equivalents the indispensable assonance is 
lost. 7 

Further enquiry by Gunkel and Cheyne made it clear that in Mt 
1-2 as well as in Rev. 12 we are dealing with Jewish development of 
an "international" myth, whose ultimate roots are in Babylonia 
but which magian astrology spread to all regions of the eastern 
Mediterranean. The supposed impermeability of the Synagogue to 
such influences is almost daily shown to be an illusion. As we write 
comes the news of the excavation from a fifth century synagogue in 
Beth Alpha, a village of northern Samaria, of a mosaic representing 
the signs of the zodiac (a favorite subject for Christian churches of 
the same region and period) with the constellation Virgo given a 
position of central prominence. The Gothic cathedrals of France 
show a similar theme, with the Virgin Mother as Queen of Heaven 
occupying the central position. But the Palestinian synagogues did 
not take it from Christianity. It is for the historian of Christianity, 
on the contrary, to learn that the syncretism of the East, which even 
Judaism could not wholly resist, was indeed, as Eusebius saw, a 
Preparatio Evangelica. 

For a summary of the demonstration with full bibliography the 
reader must look to C. Clemen's Religionsgeschichtliche Erkldrung 
des NT. (1924, pp. 192-202), where the advance of magian astrology 
from Babylonia through northern Arabia to Syria, with roots ex- 
tending eastward to Persia and India, and tributary branches from 
Egypt, an advance well depicted in Cheyne's Bible Problems (1904, 
pp. 65-94), becomes an established fact of comparative religion. 

We shall have presently to resume our study of the Hebraistic 
element of Mt provisionally classed under the designation N, to see 
whether with Soltau we must identify N with R; or whether the 
unity of viewpoint and style which undoubtedly characterize this 
group of passages may be accounted for by a cycle of tradition which' 
indeed comes conspicuously to the surface in Preamble and Epi- 

7 See Appended Note VII, "Matthean Greek and the N Factor. " Box calls at- 
tention in a footnote at this point to the fact that the targum on Is. 11:1 (the 
passage probably most in mind) introduces the identification "the Messiah." 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 155 

logue, but is nevertheless overlapped by and included under the open- 
ing accounts of Genealogy and Virgin Birth in the former, just as 
in the latter it loses itself under the evangelist's "catholicizing" 
definition of his task. 

The question of the unity, or coherence of the N element is a vital 
one, because the date and environment of the Gospel must largely 
be determined by this its most distinctive element. Such considera- 
tion as is here given to the problem can of course be only preliminary. 
Full discussion must await consideration of the Hebraizing factor in 
all its parts, particularly the "apocryphal supplements" to the Epi- 
logue. In our Special Introduction to the Epilogue, accordingly, the 
question will be taken up of the date of this element and its relation 
to Mt and to the other sources employed. Meantime we may take 
account of some of the more substantial traits of N which make 
upon a number of critics the impression of late oral tradition gathered 
up by R in various quarters , and having no more of mutual coherence 
than R himself supplies. 

As Streeter well says in arguing for their derivation from some 
region outside of Palestine (FG, p. 502) : 

The narratives peculiar to Mt are of quite a different character from 
those peculiar to Lk. Leaving out of account for the moment the Infancy, 
the only story peculiar to Matthew which stands, so to speak, "on its 
own legs" is the Stater in the Fish's Mouth. The rest are all, in a way, 
parasitic; they stand to Mk as the mistletoe to the oak. The story of 
Peter walking on the water, for example, is an expansion of the Markan 
story of Christ walking on the water, and implies the previous existence 
of the Markan story. Mt's additions to the Passion story are similarly of 
the nature of embellishments of the Markan account which presuppose 
Mk as their basis. It is noteworthy that not a single one of them looks 
like a genuine historical tradition; while some of them are clearly legendary, 
e.g., the temporary resurrection of saints in Jerusalem at the time of the 
Rending of the Veil, or Pilate's washing his hands before the multitude an 
action as probable in a Roman governor as in a British civil servant in India. 

Streeter's judgment on the "haggadic" origin of these attachments 
to the text does not differ from that of other competent scholars. 
The question before us is, What sort of unity it is which is not de- 
rived from R, and not from any document which "stands upon its 
own legs," but yet is too great to be accounted for by derivation 
from any mere cycle of oral tradition. 

Romantic dreams of discovering the "authentic Hebrew" of Mt, 
such as Jerome entertained, must be renounced, as competent scholars 
in antiquity renounced them when they had opportunity to examine 
the alleged "authentic Hebrew." Indeed Theodore of Mopsuestia 
did not hesitate to denounce Jerome's "fifth Gospel" as a fraud. 



156 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Study of the Aramaic gospels by Schmidtke and others 8 shows them 
to be targums of the Greek Gospels of our canon. On the other hand 
examples such as we have seen in Chapter VI of the liberties which 
Christian targumists took, after the example of their Jewish pred- 
ecessors, in the way of "improvements," homiletic interpretations, 
and edifying supplements to the text, are highly instructive. 

N has indeed "Mk as its basis." That would follow from the 
"Petrine" supplements alone, were it not a matter of course in a 
region which gives us Synoptic tradition as a whole and in addition 
the combination called the Gospel according to Peter in use at Rhossus 
down to 195. But had it more, as was certainly the case with Ev. 
Ptr.? That is a question for later chapters. In the meantime we may 
call attention to the fact that it is not merely the apocryphal supple- 
ments of the Epilogue (and the no less apocryphal Petrine supple- 
ment of the Stater in the Fish's Mouth) which are linked with the 
Nativity episodes by traits of thought and locution such as the dream 
as means of revelation (cf. 1:20; 2:12 f., etc., with 27:19). The "Pe- 
trine" supplements also have the same relation to rabbinic midrash 
as the Preamble. For Peter as hero of faith and foundation "Rock" 
of the new people of God is paralleled, as Schechter has shown (JQR, 
Apr., 1900, p. 428 f.) by the rabbinic interpretation of Is. 51:1 f. 
given in Yalkut i. 766. This also is a parable on the vision of Balaam 
(Num. 23:9) "from the top of the rocks," and explains why the 
title, the " Rock," is applied to Abraham : 

There was a king who desired to build and to lay foundations; he dug 
constantly deeper but found only morass. At last he dug and found a petra 
(a loan word in the Hebrew) . He said, On this spot I shall build and lay 
the foundations. ... So when God perceived that there would arise an 
Abraham he said, "Behold I have found the petra upon which to build 
and to lay foundations." Therefore He called Abraham "Rock," as it is 
said (Is. 51:1 f.), "Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn. Look unto 
Abraham your father." 

It is hopeless, of course, to look for any particular document in 
which the N legends will be discovered in their pre-Christian form; 
but it is not hopeless to apply to them the processes which Usener, 
Gressmann, and Norden have applied to the Epiphany legends of 
Lk, and Nestle and Box to those of Mt. By comparison of themes 
and motives we can determine the soil, "a Jewish soil," from which 
they spring. For if the closer parallels to Lk (and perhaps to Mt.l) 
lead us toward the Nile, those of Mt 2 lead toward the Euphrates. 
Both Mt and Lk draw from Jewish-christian sources, sources which 
in their pre-Christian, oral form are Jewish, but not purely Jewish. 

8 See Appended Note VI. 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 157 

This Jewish legend-lore in the case of Lk has absorbed elements 
from Alexandria. In the case of Mt 2 (perhaps of Mt 1 also) it would 
seem to have come in contact with the legend-lore of Persia and 
Babylon. Indeed a thousand years later the atmosphere of Meso- 
potamian Judaism had not lost its distinctive quality if we may trust 
the description given by the Persian chronographer Al Biruni (c. 
1000 A.D.) of the "Sabeans" or "Baptizers" of this region, perhaps 
the same sect of "baptizers" now known as Mandeans, or disciples 
of John the Baptist, but who call themselves Nazarenes. Al Biruni 
regards them as a remnant of the Jewish captivity in Babylon who 
refused to return to Syria, preferring their eastern homes. These, 
he tells us, "listened to the doctrine of the Magians and inclined 
toward some of them. So their religion became a mixture of Jewish 
and Magian elements, like that of the so-called Samaritans, who were 
transferred from Babylonia to Syria." 9 

But we must return to the question left open in our chapter on 
the language and style of R mt , whether the peculiar group of scrip- 
ture quotations extending through all the narrative parts of Mt 
but specially massed in Mt 2 represent the evangelist himself or only 
some special source from which he has derived these scripture quo- 
tations. Provisionally it was pointed out that in the genealogy and 
first proof-text R seems to use the LXX, also that in transcribing 
Mk he seems to assimilate Mk's quotations to the LXX. There are 
even some signs of unfamiliarity with the Hebrew text which lead 
Wernle (p. 146) to the positive verdict "Aramaic 10 was an unknown 
language to the evangelist." Both Hawkins (HS, p. 125) and Wernle 
feel driven to the conclusion that the mixture of scripture quotations, 
some based on the Hebrew some on the LXX, can be accounted for 
only by diversity of source. Soltau also, in his careful discrimination 
of linguistic usage in Mt, 11 agrees to this conclusion, but maintains 
that the proof-texts from the Hebrew and the legendary supple- 
ments are from the hand of the last reviser, whereas the adjustment 
of Mk to S is the work of a precanonical redactor corresponding to 
Streeter's M. 

Serious objections have been found to Soltau's theory of a nar- 
rowly Jewish-christian R; but his evidence for unity between the 
Preamble (chh. 1-2) and the legendary supplements and proof- 
texts from the Hebrew is based on linguistic phenomena which 
should not be overlooked. The Hebraisms, he maintains, are found 
exclusively in the legendary supplements to Mt, not in the Q or Mk 

9 Al Biruni, Chronography, Transl. Sachau, Ch. XVIII, p. 314. 

10 The instance on which this verdict is chiefly based (cl<rom) might seem to 
indicate rather ignorance of Hebrew. 

11 ZNW , I (1900), pp. 219-248. 



158 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

material. Thus M (if we may apply Streeter's symbol to the cor- 
responding figure in Soltau's theory) seeks always to improve on the 
Greek of Mk, cancelling Mk's Hebraistic expressions such as Kop(3av 
in Mk 7:11. But R (the canonical editor of Mt) who inserts the 
legendary supplement on the suicide of Judas (Mt 27:3-10), speaks 
of casting the silver-pieces (apybpta) "into the treasury" (els TOV 
Koppavav), when he could equally well have translated; for he has 
done this in the case of Aceldama, which he renders "field of blood" 
(27:8). Again the New Testament affords no other example of the 
plural apyvpia which Soltau will not even allow to be good Greek; for 
LXX render the "pieces of silver" of Zech. 11:13 robs apyvpovs. 
R mt has apyvpia not only in the supplement (27:3, 5, 6, 9) and the 
connected passage 26:15, but in the further supplement of the Brib- 
ing of the Watch (28:12, 15). Soltau considers this "a sign of the 
foreign origin of these passages." 

He has in addition a list of eight other expressions peculiar to the 
supplements and the Preamble which good Greek writers avoid or 
object to. The list follows: 

/car' ovap: On this expression cf. Phot., p. 149, 25 fear' ovap ov xpy \eyav 
fidpfiapov ye TravTcXfis' dAAa ovap. Nevertheless we find /car' ovap in Mt 
1:20; 2:12, 13, 19, 22 and 27:19, all in supplemental passages. 

ci/re 8e o-a/J/JdVoJV (rfj CTTK^WOTKOW^ eis p-iav o-a(3(3dT<av) 28:1 is a highly 
awkward construction made necessary by the correction of Mk 16:1 f. to 
a different sense. 

fjLf.roLKe.a-ia (instead of the better Greek /merouojcris) is found nowhere 
but in Mt 1:11 f., 17 referring to the Babylonian exile. 

8eiy/x,aTia> 1:19, a wholly unGreek expression (cf. Col. 2:15). 

yivwo-KO) of sexual intercourse, occurs indeed in later Greek not in- 
frequently, but is limited in the New Testament to Mt 1:25, Lk 1:34. 
It came into use obviously as a reminiscence of LXX (Gen. 4:1, 17; 
19:8, etc.). 

OTTO TOTC, an unGreek form, follows in three instances the supplements 
instead of the extremely frequent TOTC elsewhere employed by Mt (Wernle, 
p. 149). 

yevvav (gigno), ye.vva<r0ai (gignor, nascor) appears nowhere apart from 
a transcription of Mk 14:21=Mt 26:24, except in Mt 1-2 and in the 
supplement Mt 19:12, although it is a favorite term, e.g., in the vocabulary 
of Jn, and is also not infrequent in Paul and in Acts. 

oyyeAos TOV Kvptov 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19 and again 28:2 = "angel of Yah- 
weh". In Mk always ayyeXos (/ACTO, rtav dyyeAwv), likewise in the Q pas- 
sages of Mt 13:41; 24:31; 16:27; /ACTO, TWV dyyeXwv avrov. Even in the sole 
passage, 22:30, where Mt reproduces the Markan ayyeXot ev TOIS ovpa- 
vots (Mk 12.25) by ws ayyeAoi Oeov cv TW oupavw etcriv he avoids the 
Old Testament expression peculiar to the supplementer (cf. Jud. 2:1; 
Num. 22:22). ^ * 

ol ijTowTes rr)v ^VXTJV TOV iratofov Mt 2:20, is an expression not else- 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 159 

where employed in Mt. It is manifestly framed on the model of the 
Old Testament. 12 

The rare expression em/Se^/ccas and wovyn> in Mt 21 :4 f . comes from 
the LXX, whereas ir&Xov vibv wrouyfou translates the Hebrew original 
no less awkwardly than perversely. 

On this list of unclassical and mainly Hebraistic expressions Soltau 
bases two inferences: (1) The series exhibit common linguistic fea- 
tures diverse from the more careful and polished Greek of the original 
compiler of the Gospel whom Soltau designates Proto-Matthew and 
Streeter M. Since the Hebraizing passages are scattered throughout 
Mt they represent another hand to which Soltau would apply the 
designation Deutero-Matthew. Moreover certain other distinctive 
characteristics appear to accompany the linguistic, viz., a narrower 
particularism (cf. 23:3; 10:23; 5:18 f.; 10:5 f. with 28:19; 10:14-18) 
and a dogmatic use of scriptural prediction. In his Unsere Evangelien. 
Ihre Quellen und ihr jQuellenwerth (1901), a volume which carries 
further the argument of his ZNW article, Soltau elaborates his dis- 
tinction between the' primary and the secondary redaction of Mt. 
On p. 81 he sums up his conclusion that "the Logia elements" in- 
corporated by the first evangelist "everywhere repel narrow Judaism, 
Pharisaism, and reflect the character of undogmatic Christianity." 
In Proto-Matthew "an undogmatic and likewise universalistic 
spirit dominates, dogmatic traits and traces of a post-apostolic cath- 
olicity (sic) are to be found only in the supplements, including 
the first two chapters." Moreover this broader spirited Proto-Mat- 
thew was "widely read and utilized by the Church for one or two 
decades," so that it could not fail to become known to Lk, and in 
fact has been employed by him side by side with his own version of 
S. Deutero-Mt was unknown to Lk. 

No small number of critics admit Soltau's first inference. A Hebra- 
istic element actually does subsist in Mt and is principally repre- 
sented in the Preamble and the supplements. This factor cannot be 
accounted for from the elements Mk, S, or R as thus far known. But 
Soltau's further inference distinguishing two redactions, the earlier 
Hellenistic and the later Judaistic, requires a more careful examina- 
tion. The linguistic data will be discussed in an Appended Note. 13 

Both of the explanations advanced to account for the N elements 
of Mt encounter serious objections. Let us designate the explanations 
a and 6. We may ascribe these elements (a) with Soltau, to a second 
redaction, which prefixed the Preamble and scattered " Reflections^ 
dtate" and apocryphal supplements throughout that primary form 

12 The reference given (I Kings, 17:21) seems to be a misprint (I Bangs, 19:10, 
14?). The real parallel should be Ex. 4:19. 

13 See Appended Note VII, " Matthean Greek and the N Factor." 



160 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of the Gospel which consisted of a Hellenizing blend of Mk with S. 
According to Soltau this Proto-Mt circulated in its original form for 
a full decade, or even two, obtaining "wide acceptance" in the Greek- 
speaking Church, to the point of influencing Lk, before it was super- 
seded by Deutero-Mt. Our objection is that the Greek-speaking 
Church would not discard and lose wholly out of remembrance this 
more universalistic form of the Gospel, characterized by better Greek 
as well as by greater antiquity and a more liberal type of doctrine, 
to take up with the Hebraizing substitute. The "post-apostolic 
catholicity" can incorporate and carry on encysted elements of 
"narrow Judaism" as Mt 28:19 overshadows 10:5 f., 23. The reverse 
is not possible. 

The alternative explanation (6) takes the view that the same R 
who wove together Mk and S, adding some few sayings and parables 
from current oral tradition (O), resorted to some late and apocryphal 
composition of more Hebraizing type than the rest of his material 
to compose his Preamble and embellish the later narrative with 
interjected proof -texts and legendary "improvements." The objec- 
tion will be that outside the material in debate we have no knowl- 
edge of Aramaic or Hebrew documents of the type supposed, the 
material in question giving evidence of Semitic origin, and that 
doubts have been raised as to whether R mt could use any language 
but Greek. We know indeed of an Aramaic Ev. Naz. in circulation 
in Aleppo down to the times of Apollinaris of Laodicea and Jerome. 
But that seems to have been dependent on Mt, not vice versa. Testi- 
monia, or collections of proof texts from the Old Testament may 
quite well have been already in circulation, and some would make 
these the source of Mt's " Reflectionscitate" 

But Soltau and Hawkins both give linguistic evidence to prove 
that proof-texts and supplements come from the same source. It 
becomes necessary to fall back on the generalizing statement of 
Wernle (p. 191): 

The remaining passages (mostly sayings) of Mt's Sondergut (P) are 
derived by him from tradition and legend with every imaginable degree of 
working over from complete faithfulness to total transformation. 

The judgment is expressed with special reference to the N material. 
As we have seen, several critics of various opinion as to the cause 
are in agreement as to the fact, that one element of the P material 
of Mt comes from a peculiarly Jewish-christian quarter, where the 
Hebrew text of the Old Testament was still in use, but where the 
anti-Jewish feeling apparent in nearly all New Testament writings 
was exceptionally bitter. 
Intense anti-Judaism might at first appear a strange phenomenon 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 161 

for a community of Jewish blood. In reality it is typical. Even the 
pagan oppressor is not so bitterly hated by the fanatical Jew as his 
own kinsman whom he regards as a renegade, or as a betrayer of the 
national hope. Such to our converted Jew appears the unbelieving ma- 
jority of his own race. In the language of Mt "the kingdom of God 
will be taken away from them and given to a nation bringing forth 
the fruits thereof." In still worse light appear the religious leaders 
to whom is chiefly due the fact that the nation as a whole has turned 
a deaf ear to the warning of John and the glad tidings of Jesus. In 
Mt's view they have committed the unpardonable sin of calling the 
Spirit that spoke and worked through him Beelzebub. Not the true 
Israel of God, but the "scribes and Pharisees" are guilty in Mt's 
eyes of having resisted the teaching of the Son of God and with 
Herodians and Sadducean priesthood plotted his death. If any part 
of Mt shows its author's animus toward Judaism it is the smaller 
philippic of 12:30-37 against the Pharisees who had driven Jesus 
out from his work in Galilee by this blasphemy, together with the 
greater philippic of seven Woes against Scribes and Pharisees in the 
closing discourse, where they are held responsible for the fate of Jeru- 
salem. The Woes conclude with the sinister utterance "Ye serpents, 
ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Ge- 
henna?" The phraseology is taken from the Baptist's warning to 
Israel as a whole, which Mt turns into a special denunciation of 
" Pharisees and Sadducees " (Mt 23 :33 ; cf. 3 :7) . 

Modern critics are of one mind on this salient feature of the Jewish- 
christian gospel, and indeed it seems not to have escaped the observa- 
tion of second-century framers of argumenta, which told of Mt as 
author of "five books" against the "God-slaying" people of the 
Jews. 

It is no inconsistency, then, when Wernle (p. 191) brings together 
the Hebraizing series of proof-texts and the story of the miraculous 
deliverance of the infant Jesus as sharing hi kindred traits of Jewish- 
christian type: 

For the evangelist the homage of the heathen set over against the Jewish 
tyrant surely has symbolic meaning. His hand can most surely be dis- 
tinguished by this anti-Jewish tendency and the method of his proof from 
prophecy. 

Such an Aramaic-speaking Jewish-christian community, clinging 
to their own language, scripture, and mode of life, yet applauding 
the mission work of Antioch's leading apostles among the Gentiles, 
continued to exist at Aleppo down to the end of the fourth century. 
We have large fragments of their Aramaic gospel (Ev. Naz.} a work 
apparently dependent principally upon our Mt though its supporters 



162 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

claimed that this relation should be reversed. Nothing can be made of 
this connection for the origin of canonical Mt save the continuance 
in this region for centuries of a Jewish-christian body of disciples of a 
character similar to that which in Mt 4:15 f. applies the prophecy of 
Is. 8:23-9:1 (Hebr.) to the choosing by Jesus of the shores of Gen- 
nesaret as the scene for his first evangelizing activity. Among the 
Jewish-christians of Aleppo the same Isaian passage, extended to 
include also verses 2 fL, was thus interpreted: 

When Christ came and the light of his preaching began to dawn the 
land of Zebulon first and the land of Naphtali were delivered from the 
errors of the scribes and Pharisees and shook off from their necks the 
burdensome yoke of Jewish traditions. But afterwards it was increased 
through the gospel of the Apostle Paul, who was the last of the apostles; 
that is, the preaching was multiplied and the gospel of Christ blazed forth 
unto the borders of the Gentiles and the way of the world-sea. Finally the 
whole world, which before had walked or sat in shadows and been held in 
the bonds of idolatry and death, beheld the clear light of the gospel. 

Comparison with the Hebrew original of this famous messianic 
prophecy from Is. 8:14 to 9:7 will show how these Nazarene Chris- 
tians looked upon the gospel message which had come to them as at 
the same time a confirmation of prophecy, and a deliverance from 
the yoke of the traditional law imposed by "scribes and Pharisees, 
who do everything on account of their belly (cf. Rom 16:18), and who 
'chirp' after the manner of the Magians in their spells." In Is. 8:19 f. 
the Nazarenes found a direction "to the Law and the Testimony" 
instead of the "gins and snares" spread by the Synagogue teachers 
whom they had once revered as "kings and gods." In Is. 29:9-24 they 
found not only the passage quoted in Mk 7:6 f. ( = Is. 29:13) but 
explicit prophecy against the authors of the Mishnah (<5eyrpo;<ns) 
and an allusion to their "using the word of God to cause men to sin, 
so as to deny that Christ was the Son of God" (29:21). 

It is to Jerome's borrowings from his better informed predecessor 
among these Nazarene Christians of Aleppo, Apollinaris of Laodicea, 
borrowings (often unacknowledged) made for his Commentary on Isa- 
iah (Migne, Lat. Pair. 24, 122 f., 126, 128, 348, 369 f.), that we owe 
such insight as can be gained into Nazarene Christianity as it was at 
the close of the fourth century. It occupied the standpoint of our Book 
of Acts on the question of Gentile freedom from the Law, rejoicing 
in Paul's conquest of the Gentile world. But as respects its own 
practice it clung with utmost fidelity to "the law and the testimony" 
only giving it a higher and better interpretation than the "right- 
eousness of the scribes and Pharisees." The precepts, the "second 
law" (mishnah) of the scribes and Pharisees was a plant which the 



THE PREAMBLE. N AND R 163 

heavenly Father had not planted, and which must be rooted up. 
Nor did the Nazarenes leave room to doubt who, in their interpreta- 
tion, were meant by the "two houses of Israel," to whom the Re- 
deemer should be "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence" (Is. 
8:14). These were "Shammai and Hillel, from whom are derived 
the scribes and Pharisees, to whom succeeded Johanan ben Zacchai, 
and after him Eliezer." 

Whether this bitter hatred of the Judaism of "scribes and Phar- 
isees " was altogether a Christian growth developed since their con- 
version, or whether like some other sectarians of later Judaism at 
Damascus and in Transjordan, the Nazarenes of Aleppo offered 
fruitful soil to the sowing of the first evangelists just because of cer- 
tain previous tendencies to rebellion against the growing weight of 
the "Second law" we need not here enquire. Neither is it vital to 
our understanding of the Jewish- Christian Gospel of Mt to decide 
the debated question of the critics whether its undeniable infusion 
of Hebraistic material is drawn from some Nazarene targum of a 
Petrine gospel on which R has relied for his Hebraizing proof-texts 
and midrashic supplements, or whether they must be regarded as 
gathered at random among Christians of Jewish race in northern 
Syria. The important point is to know that such contacts are present, 
that our canonical Mt in its P material has experienced touches from 
this North Syrian world, a world of Judaism not wholly of the Pal- 
estinian type, and influenced already before the birth of Christianity 
by the religious rites and traditions of Babylonia and the Magianism 
which succeeded. 

One other link remains connecting the factor N with the Nazarenes 
of northern Arabia. Epiphanius, a resident for many years of Syria, 
is explicit in distinguishing the Nazarene Christians of Aleppo, his 
contemporaries, from a pre-Christian sect of Nassoreans (Nao-apatot), 
who would seem to correspond to the Nussairi of the mountain 
region between Antioch and Apamea of today. 14 The spelling of the 
name differs as respects the second consonant, but Pliny, who is 
very accurate in his geographical data for this region, probably 
deriving them from official reports of Agrippa, also uses the z (Naz- 
areni). He thus amply confirms the statement of Epiphanius as 
regards the pre-Christian origin of the Nussairi, at the same time 
introducing the same confusion of names which we find in the New 
Testament between Nazarenes (Nafap^oi) and Nazoreans (Nafw- 
pcuoi). The former is uniform with Mk and seems to be under- 
stood to mean "native of Nazareth." In Lk it occurs but once, viz., 
Lk 4:34, which transcribes unchanged Mk 1:24. Elsewhere in Lk- 
Acts we have uniformly "Nazorean," as also in Mt and Jn. In Acts 

"Panar. 29:6, 1. 



164 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

24:5 the "Nazoreans" are referred to as a "sect" (atpecris). But 
it is highly improbable that a sect should take its name from a village, 
least of all the believers in the Galilean Messiah, since notoriously 
his fellow-townsmen at Nazareth had disbelieved. Had the Chris- 
tians received their designation from the reputed birthplace of their 
Master they would have become known as "Bethlehemites," or from 
the region whence his disciples were recruited "Galileans." The con- 
nection of the term "Nazarene" (Nafcopcuos) in Mt 2:23 with the 
village of Nazareth is therefore probably a mistake due to Mk's 
use of the designation NafapT/ws as if it meant "native of Nazareth." 
Perhaps this Nafapj/ws should be counted as one more of the "Lat- 
inisms" for which Mk is noted. At all events we must look to Mk as 
the source of the mistaken derivation of Nazoreans from Nazareth, 
and regard the attempt of R mt to explain how Jesus, though born 
in Bethlehem was "called a Nazorean," as resting upon this Markan 
false etymology. 

But if we further ask whence he derived his Scripture proof, which 
seems to be based upon the Hebrew text of Is. 11:1 and involves 
some manipulation of the stem netser "shoot" or "scion" the answer 
can only be that it is a borrowed proof-text which the evangelist 
himself probably is no better able to locate than one which he mis- 
takenly ascribes to "Isaiah" in 13:35 and another which he ascribes 
to "Jeremiah" in 27:9. Whether those who first employed it were 
predecessors of the Nazoreans, the universalistic Jewish-christians 
of Aleppo of Jerome's time, or the still earlier Nasareans whom 
Epiphanius declares to have been a "pre-Christian sect" akin to the 
Essenes, and Pliny locates "across the river (Marsyas) from Apamea" 
is a question for the philologians to determine. Either way the 
general region whence our first canonical Gospel, the Greek compila- 
tion now entitled "According to Matthew," has received its infusion 
of Jewish-christian coloration, remains the same. It is the region of 
northern Arabia between Antioch and the Euphrates, the region 
where Christianity first found national acceptance, of whose chief 
city our leading authority on Syriac literature (Burkitt, GHTr, p. 172) 
has written: 

We cannot doubt that many of the survivors of the catastrophe (of the 
year 70 A.D.) lost their nationality and became merged with the Gentiles. 
Very likely many became Christians: it is difficult, for instance, to explain 
certain features in the rise of Christianity in Edessa, except on the sup- 
position that the original congregation was largely composed of converted 
Jews. 



CHAPTER XII 
THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 

IN the carrying out of a purpose such as that of our first evangelist 
it is natural that the first of the five great Discourses should be 
devoted to the theme of Jesus' teaching regarding Righteousness, 1 
and that the narrative framework leading up to it, after the plan" 
followed throughout the Gospel, should place this Discourse at 
the first available point in the story of Mk. In point of fact Division 
A of Book I gives a striking example of that abbreviation of narra- 
tive, that rearrangement and epitomizing of Markan material in the 
interest of better presentation of the Discourse, which have been 
shown to be salient features of Mt's method. 

Both Lk and Mt place the discourse at substantially the same 
point in Mk's story, the gathering of the "great multitude from 
Galilee" at the lake-shore, after Jesus' proclamation of the coming 
Kingdom in the synagogues has roused the opposition of the scribes 
and Pharisees (Mk 3 :7-12). It is impossible, in spite of the suggestion 
that Mt "might have inserted the Discourse at Mk's first mention 
of Jesus' preaching at Mk 1:21 or 39," to place it anywhere else 
than after Mk 3:7-12, if any regard be had for the implications of 
the discourse itself. For it is addressed to a body of Gome-outers, 
with "the disciples" as nucleus of the "multitude. " To these, there- 
fore, Jesus must now explain his program. 

This program, so far, merely takes up the unfinished work of 
John. Jesus has made his general proclamation that "the kingdom 
of God is at hand," that a preparation for it is needful by "repent- 
ance," and that this announcement is to be received in "faith" as 
"glad tidings." It is now imperative that he should explain what 
he means by these terms. If a new Israel is to be formed "prepared 
for the Coming" by repentance and faith Jesus must make this "un- 
churched" rabble understand why the Synagogue does not meet the 
need. If the Baptist's prophetic message is to be made effective 
he must show that there is a righteousness of sons who are such not 
as "Abraham's children," nor as obedient servitors of the precepts 
of the scribes, but as imitators of their Father's goodness of heart, 
an ethic of the ancient prophets, "What doth Jehovah require of thee 

1 On Mt's use of 8iKaio<Ttfnj=" justification" or "approbation in God's sight" see 
above, p. 133 f. and Appended Note X. 

165 



166 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy 
God? " Jesus has been offering a "gospel" to be accepted with "faith." 
He must show now its foundation. The situation implied is, therefore, 
substantially that which Mk 1 :l-3 :12 describes; but there are Markan 
omissions on the one side and additions on the other which it is im- 
portant to note both for the better understanding of the relation of 
Mk to S and for that of the discourse itself. These have been set 
forth in my BGS with reasons for the decision, so that here a brief 
summary will suffice. 

1. The implied outline is developed in Mk by certain illustrative 
and explanatory additions. The section Mk 3:13-35, which so awk- 
wardly intervenes between the setting for the discourse hi 3:7-12 
and its delivery in 4:1 ff., is intended to explain more fully the term 
"disciples," which Mk understands in the limited sense of the Twelve. 
The selection of these is therefore related in a curious digression which 
takes Jesus and these Twelve "up into the mountain" while the 
assembled multitude patiently wait below for the reappearance of 
the Speaker. This infelicity occasions the difference between the two 
reports of Mt and Lk. Mt makes the multitude ascend the mountain 
after Jesus and the Twelve, Lk makes Jesus and the Twelve come 
down to the plain, where the multitude assemble without notice or 
special occasion. Mk's list of the Twelve is therefore interjected. 
Its alien origin is apparent from the fact that it does not mention 
Levi son of Alphaeus, though the call of Levi in 2:13 f. is one of the 
reasons why Jesus' work in the synagogues roused the opposition 
of its leaders, and thus led to the "withdrawal." 

But further, Mk 3:20-35 is a digression within a digression. For 
the sake of the logion declaring the disciples to be Jesus' true kindred 
(Mk 3:31-35 = Lk 8:19-21 = 8 (Lk 11:27 f.)) Mk introduces after 
the list of the Twelve another multitude and another occasion, so 
that he never returns at all to the discourse which should have ex- 
plained the terms of the proclamation of the kingdom, but goes on 
with the discourse on True Adepts of the Divine Mysteries. The 
case is paralleled by Mk's digression at 6:17, from which again he 
never returns. The confusion occasioned by this mode of narration 
(e.g., in Mt 14:12) is quite enough to account for the verdict of ancient 
tradition against Mk's "order." On the other hand we shall see under 
the head of "omissions" that for the readers our Roman evangelist 
addresses he could well afford to pass over as teaching belonging to 
the church catechist rather than the apostle, a discourse on the Right- 
eousness of Sons which to the post-apostolic neo-legalist seemed 
indispensable, and which to the modern embodies the very essence 
of Jesus' message. We must credit Mk with a real intention to repro- 
duce the missionary preaching of Peter. 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 167 

We must also count among the additions of Mk to the primitive 
outline much of the narrative interjected between the general state- 
ment of 1:39 that Jesus "went into their synagogues throughout 
all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons" (cf. Acts 10:37 f.) 
and the assembling of the "great multitude from all Galilee" (3:7). 
Mk presents here a series of disconnected instances of the growing 
opposition of the scribes and Pharisees to Jesus' work, culminating 
in 3:6 with the conspiracy of the Pharisees and Herodians against 
his life. Some of this material, like the logion on Spiritual Kin and its 
context, he draws, it is true, from S, as shown in my BGS. But Mk 
has largely supplemented this nucleus, just as he has visibly supple- 
mented the description of the multitude in 3:7b-12. Mk's anti- 
Judaism leads him to expand whatever basic statement he found in S 
concerning this opposition into a full section, which at the close 
passes quite beyond the mark, anticipating the collision which led 
to Jesus' departure from Galilee (cf. 8:15 and Lk 13:31 f.). On the 
other hand enough fragments remain to bear out the implication 
of the discourse itself that in S also there was something to account 
for the coming forth of the multitude of Jesus' followers from the 
Synagogue. 

2. It has been shown in my BGS (pp. 9 ff.) that Mk makes a 
certain use of S. We must therefore account for his neglect to use 
more by his design, which we are credibly informed was to record 
the apostolic witness of Peter. It may be surmised that catechetic 
teaching was not considered to belong in the witness of an apostle. 
We must therefore expect also certain omissions of Mk. For it is 
implied in Mk's own narrative that he has passed over certain ele- 
ments of the story which Q supplies. Thus the preaching of repent- 
ance in view of the coming Kingdom (Mk 1:14 f.) is certainly a 
continuation of the message of the imprisoned prophet as described 
hi Q (Mt 3:7-12=Lk 3:7-17). But Mk omits to state that John had 
any such message. His nearest approach to it is his distinction of the 
baptism of John from Christian baptism of the Spirit by designating 
it "the baptism of repentance unto forgiveness of sins." John for 
Mk is merely the Elias who "prepares the way of the Lord" by 
anointing the Christ. An instance much more familiar is the omis- 
sion of everything from the Temptation story of Q (Mt 4:l-ll = Lk 
4:1-13) save the bare statement that "He was in the wilderness 
forty days tempted of Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and 
the angels ministered unto him " (Mk 1 :13). 

If, then, Mk has left it to the catechist to explain what was meant 
by "the baptism of repentance unto forgiveness of sins" we should 
find it less difficult to understand how he could leave it to the same 
agency to explain what was embodied in that teaching which was 



168 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

committed to the Twelve as "the mystery of the kingdom of God." 
The title "Reminiscences of (the Missionary Preaching of) Peter" 
at least represents what the post-apostolic Church understood to 
be the contents of Mk. If it really represents the evangelist's de- 
sign we can understand his omission of much material of the type 
of the Sermon. At all events it is equally certain that Mk knew these 
elementary truths of church teaching, and that he, like Paul, did 
not regard them as constituting the message of the "apostle," who is 
primarily a witness of the manifestation of the Son of God. Of course 
the apostle too must teach his converts what sort of conduct admits 
to the inheritance (Gal. 5:21). And the question "What must I do to 
inherit eternal life? is indeed answered by Mk, though in another 
sense than Mt's, in his section on Law vs. Grace (Mk 10:13-^5). 

We may therefore hold, in spite of Mk's additions and digressions, 
that Mt and Lk are correct in taking the description of the assembled 
multitude "from Galilee," who have "withdrawn" with Jesus and 
his disciples from the Synagogue (Mk 3:7) as the proper situation 
for the discourse on Filial Righteousness. The situation accounts 
for its opening Beatitudes, whose paradoxes aim at differentiation. 
The heirs of the Kingdom are not those, but these. In Mt they 
segregate the disciple of the Kingdom from the disciple of the Syna- 
gogue. They explain how his "righteousness" differs from that of 
the scribes and Pharisees. Mt's standard is "the Law and the proph- 
ets" (7:12) plus the new commandment (19:18 f.). In Lk the Beat- 
itudes (offset by Woes), segregate the same disciple from the world. 
He has believed the "glad tidings" and henceforth lives in the world 
as not of it. In the brotherhood to which he now belongs the world's 
distinctions of rich and poor, socially exalted and socially despised, 
are superseded. Mt proclaims a new Law which separates its ob- 
servers from the Synagogue, Lk a new gospel which separates be- 
lievers from the world. It is not difficult to see which conception 
stands nearer to the proclamation of the glad tidings by the Prophet 
of Galilee. Both agree in bringing the opening words of the Discourse 
into the key of Lk 4:16 ff. where Jesus takes Is. 61:1 f. as text for 
his glad tidings to "the poor." 

Once the relation of Mk to the Q material is realized it becomes 
easier to see the significance of the situation (on which Mt and Lk 
agree) as determining the nature and bearing of the discourse. In 
consequence of the hostility with which Jesus' message has been re- 
ceived at the hands of the synagogue authorities, he and his disciples 
and following have "withdrawn" (a.vex&pv)ffev) to the lake-shore. 
It is now imperative for him to give coherence to this unorganized 
body. He must give them principles of action to take the place of those 
which his preaching has assumed to be inadequate. He has heralded 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 169 

throughout Galilee the message, a message "from heaven and not of 
men," of the imprisoned prophet. How now to make "a people 
prepared for the Coming"? What of the required "repentance"? 
What of the "belief in the glad tidings"? We shall see presently that 
the Q discourse does respond in all its parts to this historical situation. 
Some description of it, however brief, must have been given hi S, 
for no other supposition will account both for the intrinsic require- 
ment of the discourse and for the differences among our three reporters 
of the beginnings of the Galilean ministry. 

Division A 

We have already seen that Mk, who previously had ignored all 
that related to the prophetic message of John and his effort to "make 
ready for Jehovah a people prepared for him," might leave it to the 
church catechist to explain the moral implications of this preparation 
by repentance and faith, and pass on at once to the discourse on True 
Hearers (Mk 4:9, 23); because Mk's interest and that of his Roman 
readers is centered on the differentiation of the group of Spiritual 
Kin to whom is given the "mystery of the kingdom of God." Mk's 
objective is, in fact, the hiding of this mystery through the parabolic 
method of teaching from the "outsiders," Jesus' kindred according 
to the flesh, who "have ears to hear" but hear not. We have now 
to see how Mt has blended S and Mk in order to secure from the 
combination the pragmatic values which to him were most essential. 
The purpose in view appears quite distinctly in the Narrative Intro- 
duction (Division A) which leads up to the Discourse (Division B). 

The most conspicuous feature in Mt's use of Mk 1:1-3:12 is the 
shortening of the story element. All that pertains to the story of the 
ministry of preaching in the synagogues of Galilee is summed up 
in a single verse in the stereotyped formula of 4:23 (cf. 9:35) : 

And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and 
preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease 
and all manner of sickness among the people. 2 

Everything not indispensable to the scene-setting for the Discourse 
Mt either postpones or omits altogether. Of course the Vocation 
at the Baptism of John and Beginning of the Preaching in Galilee 
(3:l-4:17=Mk 1:1-15) could not be omitted, nor the Calling of the 
Fishermen (4:18-22=Mk 1:16-20). They were implied in the group 
of "disciples" addressed. But all of Mk's story that follows the first 
mention of Jesus' preaching in the synagogue (Mk 1:21 f.) is post- 
poned by Mt to form part of the narrative introducing his second 

2 How much of this summary of R m rests on S cannot, of course, be determined. 
Something similar must have paved the way for the discourse. 



170 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Discourse, or else omitted altogether. Even the Sabbath of Miracles 
at Capernaum is displaced. 3 The first of the series, the Exorcism in 
the Synagogue (Mk 1:21-28), is omitted entirely, 4 as well as the 
Reaction and Departure (35-38). Mt reserves the rest of the Markan 
story for the group of Mighty Works forming Division A of Book II. 
Not even the Call of Levi ("Matthew") nor the Choosing of the 
Twelve are thought necessary. The Call of Levi is postponed to II, 
A; the Choosing of the Twelve is omitted altogether, though the 
list is given in II, A. A clean sweep is made of the entire section on 
Opposition of the scribes and Pharisees (Mk 1:40-3:6), part of it 
postponed to II, A, part to III, A. This brings Mk's opening scene 
of the section (Jesus' Preaching in the Synagogue, Mk 1:21 f.) into 
juxtaposition with the last. Having omitted the Sabbath of Mir- 
acles of Mk 1:21-39, and the section on Growing Opposition which 
follows in 1:40-3:6, all that Mt now requires to make a suitable 
mise en scene for the Discourse is to summarize in 4:23-25 the omitted 
material, including in the summary Mk's description of the assembled 
multitude. He can now bracket the Discourse between the descrip- 
tion of the audience (Mk 3:7-12) and Mk 1:22, which described the 
effect of Jesus' preaching. The latter passage is combined with S to 
form the first "transition formula": 

Mkl:22 Mt7:28f. 

And it came to pass wnen Jesus 
had finished these words that the 

And they were astonished at his multitudes were astonished at his 
teaching; for he taught them as one teaching; for he taught them as one 
having authority and not as the having authority and not as their 
scribes. scribes. 

Only less conspicuous than Mt's radical shortening of the narra- 
tive portions of Mk employed in his introduction to the first Dis- 
course is his expansion of the teaching element. This appears even in 
his introduction. Mk had omitted from S everything concerned with 
the Baptist's Proclamation of the coming Kingdom. Mt now restores 
this in 3:7-12, as well as the Temptations, which interpret the sense 
in which Jesus takes the divine Vocation. These also had been omitted 
by Mk, but are restored by Mt in 4:1-11. Lk makes the same restora- 
tions, which would certainly commend themselves to any evangelist 
aiming to make good Mk's notorious deficiency. Such other material 
as Mt may have woven in from S in Division A either consists of 

3 Mt 8:16 "when even was come" betrays the displacement by omitting the 
fact that this was the Sabbath (Mk 1:21). 

4 For the reason see my article, "The Markan Theory of Demonic Recognition 
of the Christ" inZNW, VI (1905), pp. 153-158. 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 171 

very minute touches or escapes our identification because not sec- 
onded by Lk. He does take occasion, however, because of his anti- 
Jewish apologetic, to attach two supplements of P material. The 
fact that Jesus had submitted to be baptized by John was held up 
as a mark of inferiority. R attaches, accordingly, to Mk's statement 
of the fact (Mk l:9 = Mt 3:13) the following answer to the objection 
in 3:14 f.: 

But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized 
of thee, and comest thou to me? But Jesus answering said unto him, 
Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he 
suffereth him. 

Even without the telltale phrase "fulfil all righteousness" it would 
be easy to determine, responsibility for this apologetic supplement, 
which Ev. Hebr. repeats with slight "improvements." 5 It is quoted 
by Ignatius, who thus guarantees its originality with Mt, but in 
standpoint and motive it recalls the apologetic of Ev. Naz., which 
meets the objection that Jesus had submitted to a "baptism of 
repentance unto forgiveness of sin" as follows: 

Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brethren said to him: John the 
Baptist is baptizing for the forgiveness of sins; let us go and be baptized 
by him. But he said to them, What sin have I committed that I should 
go and be baptized by him? Unless indeed this very word that I have 
spoken be a sin of ignorance. 

Both supplements attach to the same passage of Mk 6 and display 
precisely the same style of targumic interpretative and apologetic 
rendering. Ev. Naz. had already given us an example of the same type 
in its version of the Rich Enquirer. 7 

Another addition in 4:13-16 exhibits the same apologetic interest, 
but is probably not original with R, for it belongs with the group of 
"reflective" quotations whose Hebrew base is hardly concealed by a 
partial assimilation to the LXX. It is probably from an Aramaic 
targum of the same type as Ev. Naz. that R derives his scriptural 
defense against the objection that if Jesus had a message for Israel 
it should have been delivered at once in Jerusalem instead of in 
provincial Galilee. (The fourth Gospel rearranges the story so as to 

6 See Appended Note VI, p. 478. 

6 It is important to observe that the basis of the apologetic supplement of Ev. 
Naz. in this case is not Mt but Mk 1 :4. Mt avoids the objectionable clause "unto 
forgiveness of sins" (Mk l:4=Lk 3:3) by transferring it to 26:28 ("my blood 
shed for forgiveness of sins"; cf. Jn 1:29). Thus Mt and Ev. Naz. stand to one 
another here in a relation of parallelism, not of dependence. We do not suggest 
that Mt 3:14 f. is derived from Ev. Naz., but that its author (R) breathes the 
same atmosphere. 

7 Above, p. 89. 



172 



STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



make this the actual course followed by Jesus.) After the statement 
of Mk 1:14 that Jesus "came into Galilee" to begin his work after 
John's imprisonment Mt interjects a quotation from Is. 8:23; 9:1 
(Engl. 9:1 f.), where "Galilee of the Gentiles" is spoken of as the 
region of deepest gloom, where the dawn of deliverance is first to 
shine. The passage is the same which the Nazarenes of Apollinaris' 
time appealed to, first to excuse their rejection of the scribes and 
synagogue leaders, whom they had once looked up to as "kings and 
gods," second to justify the Gentile missions of Paul. Because of 
these affinities we have felt it proper to place the symbol N opposite 
these two supplements in our translation. 8 

Division B 

Having constructed thus by addition and subtraction from Mk 
1:1-3:12 a suitable narrative introduction, Mt forms by agglutina- 
tion of teachings of Jesus, all derived from non-Markan sources, his 
first great Discourse in 5:1-7:27. To appreciate the general structure 
of this B division we shall find of service the following table of source 
material, which divides it into (1) Q material in situ (i.e., paralleled 
by Lk in the same discourse); (2) Q material from other discourses; 
(3) individual P logia; (4) P discourse. The table is given by McNeile 
(Comm., p. 99 f.). 



( 1) Discourse common to Mt and Lk 

Mt Lk 

(a) 5: 3 6:20 

4, 6 9 21b, 21a 

5, 7-10 

11, 12 

(b) 38-42 
43-48 9 



22,23 
29,30 
27, 28, 32-36 



Mt 

(c) 7: 1, 2 

3-5 
12 9 

(d) 16-20 
21 
24-27 



Lk 

6:37, 38b 
41,42 
31 

43,44 
46 
47-49 



( 2) Scattered passages collected by Mt 

5:13 14:34 f. (Mk 9:50) 

15 11:33 (8:16; Mk 4: 
21) 

18, 19 16:17 

25, 26 12:58, 59 

32 16:18 

6: 9-13 11:2-4 

( 3) Passages peculiar to Mt 
5:14, 16, 23, 24, 31; 6:7, 8, 14, 15; 7:6, 15. 

8 See above, p. 162 and Part III. 



6:19-21 


12:33 f. 


22,23 


11:34-36 


24 


16:13 


25-33 


12:22-31 


7:7-11 


11:9-13 


13, 14 


13:24 


22,23 


13:26, 27 



9 Change of order. 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 173 

( 4) Discourse peculiar to Mt 

Thesis: 5:17 (18 f.), 20 

(a) The Righteousness of the Scribes, 5:21-37, 38-48: Murder (verses 
21, 22), Adultery (verses 17-30), False oaths (verses 33-37). 

(b) The Righteousness of the Pharisees, 6:1-6, 16-18: The general 
Principle (verse 1), Alms (verses 2-4), Prayer (verses 5, 6), Fasting 
(verses 16-18). 

The table should be corrected by the transfer of 5:19 (P mt ) to 
3 and the addition to the same section of 5:7-10 and 6:34. It should 
be compared with the important comment which follows it, of which, 
however, we have space here only for the closing paragraph, which 
brings clearly before us the issue thus far left in abeyance (though 
several times referred to), viz., Streeter's theory of a Proto-Matthew, 
the supposed document M intervening between S and Mt, corre- 
sponding to the document L which many critics think it necessary 
to postulate between S and Lk. McNeile writes as follows (p. 101) : 

While it is clear that Mt and Lk employed different recensions of Q, 
the history of which cannot be traced, the most serious difficulty would 
be removed if we could suppose that the discourse on the Law ( 4) was 
originally circulated as an independent document. Mt may have found 
it so, or it may already have been attached at some point (not necessarily 
in the Sermon) to the recension of Q which he used. Finding the sayings 
on Retaliation, and on Love and Hatred, arranged in the form in which 
Lk has them, he altered the order, adding verses 38 and 43, and eyu Se 
Xeyco vfuv, thus making them similar to the preceding sayings in his dis- 
course. Derivation from an independent source would also account for 
the Greek form 'lepocroXvfjui (5:35) in an utterance of Jesus (see on 23:37). 
Lastly the command "Judge not" (7:1) affords no sequence with the pre- 
ceding verses, but is closely connected with 5:44-48 (Love excludes cen- 
sorious judgment); and in Lk the parallels to 5:48 and 7:1 are placed to- 
gether; Mt 6, therefore, was interpolated by Mt, and not omitted by Lk 
or his source, for polemical or other reasons. 

Our Appended Note VIII and translation (Pt. Ill) will indicate 
the measure of agreement we are able to reach with such competent 
scholars as Marriott and McNeile in the source analysis of the Sermon 
as respects both sections of the Q material, those in situ and those 
transferred, the reasons having been stated in SM. On the question 
of M only a study of the P material can decide, particularly a study 
of 3 containing the short comments or floating logia, whether of 
rabbinic or Christian tradition, where the hand of R can be most 
reliably identified. We have already noted the necessity of adding to 
this list of P mt passages the verses 5:19 and 6:34, which McNeile has 
omitted (perhaps by oversight) and 5:7-10 a passage only shown as 
belonging to this P material by the in the parallel column. When 



174 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

full account is taken of the elements most surely attributable to R. 
a sounder conclusion can be reached as to the degree of alteration 
and supplementation for which he individually can be held responsi- 
ble. It will be recalled that our study thus far tends to the conclu- 
sion that R's function was far less mechanical, less limited to 
mere transcription of documents, than critics have been disposed to 
think. 

Of the (corrected) list of "Passages peculiar to Mt" under 3 
several have already been referred to R. Thus 6:7 f. and 14 f. have 
the distinctive notes of influence from Ecclesiasticus and special 
emphasis on the necessity of forgiveness of brethren (cf. 18:21-35). 
The latter characteristic is no less prominent in 5:23 f., which may 
therefore safely be ascribed to the same hand. The last two verses 
are not of R's composition, but reflect the type of thought character- 
istic of Ecclesiasticus and of Johanan ben Zacchai. The fact that 
sacrifice is referred to as still practicable is no obstacle to regarding 
the saying as taken up from oral tradition, whether in Church or 
Synagogue, after the overthrow of the temple. The same interest is 
apparent in two of the Beatitudes of P mt . Mt 5:7 epitomizes 18:21- 
35 and 5:9 is closely akin. It has a remarkable parallel in rabbinic 
teaching 10 which comments on the name "Shulamite" (interpreted 
as "Peacemaker") for Israel as Jehovah's bride in Cant. 6:13 (Heb. 
7 :1) and the four-fold entreaty " Return " (or " Repent ") . In combina- 
tion with Is. 66:12 and 1:26 f. it is taught that God thus entreats 
his people to be reconciled to Him in order that they may "make 
peace for the world." For the alienated and unrepentant world the 
people of God are charged with what Paul designates "the message 
of the reconciliation." We may see the same poetic thought in Jas. 
3:18, but it is not fair to the finest spirits of rabbinic Judaism to 
deny its independent origin in the Synagogue. 

The other two Matthean Beatitudes which fail to appear in the 
Lukan form are both from the Psalms. Mt 5:5 reproduces Ps. 37:11 
(LXX), while Mt 5:8 epitomizes Ps. 24:4 (LXX). It is difficult to 
see thus far any occasion for assuming "another recension of Q" 
from which R might derive his supplements; for while in form Mt 5:10 
is assimilated to the seven preceding "beatitudes," in substance it 
merely epitomizes the two Q verses which follow. A tell-tale verbal 
trait is Mt's favorite term bwaioavvri. 

The liturgical form aimed at in the Matthean Beatitudes appears 
to be a decalogue, of which the tenth "word" is verse 12 = Lk 6:23. 
This being in the second person and forming part of the preceding 
congratulation (verse ll = Lk 6:22) eight Beatitudes were required 

10 See Genesis Rabba, 66:2, and cf. my article, "The Blessing of the Peace- 
makers" in Expository Times for Nov., 1929 (XLI, No. 2). See Appended Note X. 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 175 

before it. This total is accordingly made up by the insertion of 
verse 4 (in the oldest texts after verse 5) and the addition of verses 
7-9. All four supplements seem to bear the hall-mark of R. Lk's 
Beatitudes on the other hand form a pentad consisting of four 
felicitations followed by the exhortation to "Rejoice" (verse 23). 
To this pentad are appended, perhaps by a later hand (L?), four 
Woes. 

In the list of P mt passages we have further two verses of the highly 
composite Exordium (5:13-16) prefixed to the Theme. One of these 
(5:16) forms its "Editorial Conclusion" n and is so saturated with 
both the ideas and phraseology of R as to leave no doubt of its origin: 

Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works 
and may glorify your Father who is in heaven. 

The other (verse 14) consists of two logia. The first, "Ye are the 
light of the world," is one of the commonplaces of rabbinic teaching 
closely paralleled in the Testament of Levi, 14:3, where the priestly 
tribe are told "Ye are the lights of Israel." The other logion survives 
in uncanonical tradition 12 as a saying of Jesus. It also is a mere 
current proverb "A city situated on a mountain cannot be hid." 
If to these two verses of the Exordium we add 7:6 ("Give not holy 
flesh to the dogs"), and 6:34 ("Sufficient unto the day is its evil"), 
two popular maxims of similar type, there will remain of the "pas- 
sages (sc. 'logia') peculiar to Mt" only two, both of which are so 
typical of R's dominant interest that we need but quote them in 
full. In 5:19 our evangelist expresses his view of the relative value 
to the Church of the teacher who "looses" (i.e., shows a requirement 
of the Law to be obsolete) as compared with the teacher who "binds" 
(i.e., shows a requirement to be obligatory) : 

Whosoever therefore shall loose one of these least commandments, and 
shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but 
whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom 
of heaven. 

In 7:15 Mt adds to this blessing pronounced on the conservative 
"scribe converted to the kingdom of heaven" a warning against the 
teachers of "lawlessness" even when (as in Mk 9:39 and Acts 19:13 
ff.) they do mighty works in the name of Jesus: 

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but in- 
wardly are ravening wolves. 

11 Synopticon of A. Wright, p. 192. 
18 Oxyrhynchus Fragment, Log. VI. 



176 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Thus the simple process of grouping together the "passages pe- 
culiar to Mt" already furnishes a picture of R's character and view- 
point. 

The "discourses peculiar to Mt" (4, a and 6) have also their 
story to tell. It is in fact around this P mt group that discussion re- 
volves. According to McNeile it "consists of a complete and co- 
herent discourse" on the theme of the relation of the moral charac- 
teristics Jesus desires to see in his followers to the laws and customs 
of his nation. We may therefore call it appropriately: The New 
Torah section. 

Against the view of Harnack, which denies this P material a place 
in Q on the ground that it partakes of "that controversial attitude 
toward Judaism which is a peculiar characteristic of St. Matthew" 
(Btr II, p. 183, Engl), McNeile protests: 

That it was the work of Mt, or of any other early Christian, is utterly 
improbable. The moral insight which could penetrate to the spiritual 
"fulfilment" of the Mosaic laws is that of the Lord Himself and of none 
other. 

We have seen above (p. 123 f .) strong reason for inclusion at least of 
its former part in S. 

It remains, then, to account for the non-appearance of this New 
Torah section in Lk. Here McNeile inclines to the explanation of 
Stanton (GHD II, pp. 80-84), who resorts to an L theory, at least 
so far as this particular discourse is concerned. According to Stanton 
the Aramaic original of the discourse on Filial Righteousness ap- 
peared in two Greek translations, one intended for Jews, the other 
for Gentiles; and the translator of the latter omitted all that he 
deemed unsuitable for Gentiles. As compensation for the omission 
of the condemnations of hypocrisy in alms, prayer, and fasting L 
added the Woes (Lk 6:24 ff.), which form a sort of generalization 
of the condemnation. (Cf. Lk's (brexere rr/v irapaKh)<nv tj/zcoi> with 
Mt's airi-xovviv rbv p,i(rdbv aurcop). The extent of McNeile's agreement 
with Stanton can be judged from the extract already given. 13 

Lukan divergence from the original form of S has already been 
exemplified. In the case of the parable of the Slighted Invitation u 
we have seen how editorial alteration takes place on both sides. 
With or without L as an intermediate link our third evangelist does 
present, at this point at least, a form of S better adapted to Gentile 
readers. It stands- closer, moreover, to the parallels in Jas. If L be 
such an intermediate document we must also assign to it much of the 
narrative element by which S is expanded in Lk's employment into a 

13 Above, p. 172. " Above, p. 65. 



THE FIRST BOOK OP MT 177 



true "narrative" (Si^yrjo-is). 16 We have, therefore on the Lukan 
side, plenty of analogy for Stanton's theory of a form of S in which 
the Woes (Lk 6:24-26) compensate for the omission of much "anti- 
Pharisaic" material. 

On the other hand Harnack's ground for excluding the New Torah 
from S is only valid on the supposition that S showed nothing like 
the anti-Judaism of R mt . Now it is quite true that elaboration and 
expansion of anti-Judaistic material is one of the most distinctive 
notes of R mt . One of the few points of agreement between Zahn and 
Harnack is that both these leading scholars make it beyond all 
else the distinctive characteristic of Mt, and in this, as we have seen, 
they appear to be following the judgment of antiquity. 16 Such a 
tendency might account for supplementation by R mt of anti-Phar- 
isaic material found in S; hardly more. From our analysis of division 
6 of the New Torah, however, in which critics agree in finding three 
elements, both R material and Q material being superimposed on a 
basis which displays a triadic symmetry, we have reason to expect 
the same elements in division a, where a similar literary symmetry 
has been similarly dislocated. R's part is superficial. 

No less convincing is the argument from content. The favorable 
judgment of OS has already been recorded. 17 We can but concur with 
McNeile, who declares it "utterly improbable" that any other than 
"our Lord Himself" should display "the moral insight which could 
penetrate to this spiritual fulfilment of the Mosaic laws"; for surely 
it would be hard to maintain the proposition that S did not contain 
anti-Pharisaic material, or utterances derogatory to outward legalism 
if the Lukan parables of the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee and 
Publican may be taken as representative either of Jesus' actual 
teaching or of Lk's conception of it. 

Two things, however, remain to be accounted for: (1) The literary 
symmetry of the entire section, including both (a) and (b) ; (2) the 
"interpolation of Mt 6" by R mt at a point where it interrupts the 
connection preserved by Lk between 5:48 and 7:1. In order to make 
apparent this literary symmetry and at the same time exhibit the 
double divergence between Mt and Lk it will be advisable to place 
the two witnesses to S in parallel columns, omitting from Mt the 
elements ascribed, or to be ascribed, to editorial supplementation; 
but retaining between -- those of R lk : 18 

15 "Ye have received your consolation" (irapdK\t]irii>) in 6:24 recalls the de- 
scription of the aged Simeon in 2:25, who was "awaiting the consolation (irapd- 
K\ri<rii>) of Israel." 

18 See above, p. xiv. 

17 Above, p. 123. 

18 See further Appended Note VIII, "The Four-document Hypothesis and 
Mt5-6." 



178 



STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



Mt 

Ye have heard that it was said to 
them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; 
and whosoever shall kill shall be in 
danger of the judgment: but I say 
unto you, that everyone who is angry 
with his brother shall be in danger 
of the Gehenna of fire. 

Ye have heard that it was said, 
Thou shalt not commit adultery: 
but I say unto you, that everyone 
that looketh on a woman to lust 
after her hath committed adultery 
with her already in his heart. 

Again, ye have heard that it was 
said to them of old time, Thou shalt 
not forswear thyself, but shalt per- 
form unto the Lord thine oaths: but 
I say unto you, Swear not at all, 
but let your speech be Yea, yea; 
Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more 
than these is of evil. 

Ye have heard that it was said, 
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a 
tooth; but I say unto you, Resist 
not him that is evil: but whosoever 
smiteth thee on thy right cheek, 
turn to him the other also. And if 
any man would go to law with thee, 
and take away thy coat, let him 
have thy cloak also. And whosoever 
shall impress thee to go one mile, go 
with him two. Give to him that 
asketh thee, and from him that would 
borrow of thee turn not thou away. 

Ye have heard that it was said, 
Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and 
hate thine enemy: but I say unto 
you, Love your enemies, and pray 
for them that persecute you, that ye 
may be sons of your Father who is 
in heaven: for he maketh his sun to 
rise on the evil and the good, and 
sendeth rain on the just and the un- 
just. For if ye love them that love 
you, what claim to reward have ye? 
Do not even the publicans the same? 
And if ye salute your brethren only, 



Lk(L) 

But woe unto you that are rich! 
for ye have received your consolation. 
Woe unto you, ye that are full now! 
for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you, 
ye that laugh now! for ye shall 
mourn and weep. Woe unto you 
when all men shall speak well of you! 
for in the same manner did their 
fathers to the false prophets. 



But I say unto you that hear, Love 
your enemies, do good to them that 
hate you, Bless them that curse you, 
pray for them that despitefully use 
you. To him that smiteth thee on 
the one cheek offer also the other; 
and from him that taketh away thy 
cloak withhold not thy coat also. 
Give to everyone that asketh thee; 
and of him that taketh away thy 
goods ask them not again. And as 
ye would that men should do to you, 
do ye also to them likewise. 

And if ye love them that love you, 
what (claim to) thanks have ye? for 
even sinners do the same. And if ye 
lend to them of whom ye hope to 
receive, what (claim to) thanks have 
ye? even sinners lend to sinners to 
receive again as much. But love your 
enemies, and do them good, and 
lend, never despairing; and your 
reward shall be great, and ye shall 
be sons of the Most High, for he is 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 179 

what do ye more than others? do not kind to the unthankful and evil. Be 
even the Gentiles the same? Ye, ye merciful as the manner of your 
therefore shall be complete (in your Father is to be merciful, 
goodness) as your heavenly Father \ 

is complete. 

In both reports it is the purpose of the section commending the 
limitless goodness of God as the standard of right conduct toward our 
fellow-men to justify the assurances given in the Beatitudes. The 
"great reward in heaven" is the explicit ground of these assurances, 
a reward promised in Mt on condition of living up to a certain moral 
and religious standard, in Lk predicted in spite of certain present 
hardships. Mt legislates, Lk proclaims glad tidings. Mt depicts the 
ideal "disciple of the kingdom" over against the disciple of the Syna- 
gogue, Lk depicts the brotherhood of the elect as God sees them 
over against the favorites of fortune as the world sees them. In both 
cases the paradox must be resolved. Mt must show why Jesus offered 
the heavenly reward on other terms than the "righteousness of the 
scribes and Pharisees," Lk must show why he ventured to assure 
his "little flock" that, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, 
"it is the sovereign decree (elbburiaev} of your heavenly Father to 
give you the kingdom." 

In the depiction of the Righteousness of Sons both reporters of the 
discourse are in agreement, an agreement which comes toward the 
close to be practically verbal. The common factor (Q) rests upon 
the principle of "grace," much as in Mk 10:13-31 and in the anti- 
legalistic parables of the Dissatisfied Wage-earners and the Servile 
Task (Lk 17:7-10). It is the same as in Paul's paraphrase of this 
ethic of the Imitation of God's goodness in Eph. 4:31-5:2. The 
historical situation presupposed on both sides is thus met. Having 
proclaimed the coming kingdom throughout Galilee, exhorting all 
to repentance, and having now withdrawn with his motley following 
from the hostile Synagogue, Jesus greets those who have accepted 
the glad tidings with a renewal of the assurance. He cannot do other- 
wise than answer the question we may imagine written on all these 
upturned faces, What, then, shall we do? How shall we know that 
this heavenly reward is really for us? Historically the S q discourse on 
Filial Righteousness is what we should expect under the assumed 
circumstances. 

But it does not follow that either form in which the discourse 
is reported gives a stenographic reproduction. Mt and Lk show 
different ideals in their records, both attaching more importance to 
practical and religious edification in their own age than to historical 
transmission. Stanton imagines two translations of a common Ara- 
maic original. McNeile thinks it clear "that Mt and Lk employed 



180 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

different recensions" of it. The point of divergence is where Lk adds 
the Woes (Lk 6:24-26); for as respects symmetry these seem to 
require another utterance at the close, to balance the previous pentad; 
as respects contents they occasion a very awkward transition in verse 
27 ("But to you that hear I say"), hardly fitting the sequel, which 
contrasts conduct which may look for "great reward" with that 
which has no claim to "thanks." Whoever is responsible, Lk's version 
here gives evidence of change. His comparative presupposes a posi- 
tive. Nor can it be a comparison of the present poor with the absent 
rich which was in the Speaker's mind. The comparison regarded 
conduct or conditions befitting heirs of the kingdom. It contrasted 
what others might so consider with the Speaker's paradoxical declara- 
tion. The clause "But to you that hearken I say" is therefore in 
reality a substitute for Mt's emphatic "But I say." Before it we 
must supply some conventional view which Jesus displaces by the 
assurance which follows: The expected inheritance is destined for 
those who are the "sons" according to the spirit. In substance 
the discourse is therefore a continuation of John's "Think not 
to say, 'We are Abraham's children' but repent." The principle 
of changed life (/jerawia) thereupon unfolded contrasts the "re- 
pentance" which really prepares for the kingdom with conventional 
repentance. It involves likeness of nature to the Father. It is an 
imitatio Dei which (as the sequel goes on to show) is more than mere 
imitation because rooted in the heart. This, then, is Lk's version of 
the discourse on Filial Righteousness. He has it from S, but perhaps 
through the medium of L. 

In view of what we are compelled to suppose was the historical 
occasion for Jesus' discourse Mt's supplementation by addition of 
the (expanded) discourse on the New Torah has something to com- 
mend it. He understands by the "accepted views" Jesus would 
displace "the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees." As supplying 
the foil we expect Mt's report may perhaps be taken as somewhat 
more historical than that of Lk, which omits the specific application 
and presents a generalized soa'aZ contrast corresponding to the de- 
scription in Jas. 2:1-13 of "the law of liberty." Nevertheless we can 
only partially concur with the reasoning of Stanton and McNeile, 
that "Mt and Lk employed different recensions of Q." 

For divergence on Lk's part, proved by comparison with Q, does 
not carry with it the assurance that Mt has not also diverged. On 
the contrary two facts indicate that the section of P mt which we have 
designated the New Torah has been given the form of an agglutina- 
tion for catechetic purposes, corresponding to the Lk (or L?) form 
of the Discourse on Filial Righteousness. These two facts are (1) 
an arrangement in literary or rhetorical symmetry covering both 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 181 

divisions of the section and in some degree corresponding to the 
pentad (or decalogue) of the Beatitudes; (2) the disagreement be- 
tween Mt and Lk as to the continuation after Mt 5:48. The literary 
symmetry is disregarded in both divisions by R mt and is therefore 
not likely to be his own work. The insertion of ch. 6 between Mt 
5:48 and 7:1 appears to violate an original connection preserved in 
Lk 6:36 n. These two phenomena lead us to assume not "independ- 
ent documents" in which the New Torah discourse circulated hi dif- 
ferent quarters, but simply the same redactional processes on both 
sides repeatedly exhibited by R mt and R lk . Mt dislocates and re- 
agglutinates discourse from S. Lk (perhaps after L) stylizes. 

For the nature of this New Torah section, and the reason why a 
portion of it intervenes between Mt 5:48 and 7:1 ff., utterances 
which by the testimony of Lk should be consecutive, we must refer 
the reader to our Appended Note VIII. As regards the interruption 
between Mt 5:48 and 7:1 ff. it is only fair to supply here the explana- 
tion of McNeile in his own words: 

The discourse on the Law (the New Torah discourse) was originally 
circulated as an independent document. Mt may have found it so, or it 
may already have been attached at some point (not necessarily in the 
Sermon) to the recension of Q which he used. Finding the sayings on 
Retaliation, and on Love and Hatred, arranged in the form in which Lk 
has them, he altered the order, adding verses 38 and 43, and eyu> Se Aeyco 
, thus making them similar to the preceding sayings in his discourse. 



The point of interest for students of the structure of Division B 
of Mt's first Book is that the New Torah section appears indeed, 
as Harnack maintains, to be alien to the Discourse on Filial Right- 
eousness, which formed the nucleus of Mt's Sermon, and McNeile's 
suggestion of the manner of its intervention here has much to com- 
mend it. Whatever the derivation of the New Torah section, the 
hand which has adjusted it to a connection with the Discourse is 
almost certainly that of R mt . This appears from form and interest 
alike. The expansion of the original triad into a pentad of antitheses 
would resemble the Matthean expansion of the five petitions of the 
Lord's Prayer into seven, and the expansion of the pentad of the 
Beatitudes into a decad. At all events the interest of the supple- 
ments is "Matthean" (cf. 5:7 with 23 f.). Above all the Thesis 
(5:17, 20) and the sub-head 6:1 (cf. "do your righteousness") are 
unmistakably from the hand of R, and it is under these rubrics that 
the two parts of the New Torah section are introduced. 

On the other hand traits of both form and substance corroborate 
the feeling of McNeile and others that the New Torah, or "discourse 
on the Law" is "from the Lord himself and none other." It does 



182 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

not appear, however, that we need resort to any "independent docu- 
ment," much less base on it any theory of an M source coextensive 
with Q. Other Q material shows similar triadic symmetry of form 
(cf. the Temptations and the Discourse on the Mission of the Bap- 
tist). It appears again in Mk 9:43-47, while Mk 10:1 ff. shows affin- 
ities of content with our S q discourse. The non-appearance in Lk 
of the New Torah is accounted for by Lk's apparent adoption of the 
form of the Sermon belonging to L. We may therefore accept the 
strong impression of Sir John Hawkins above cited (p. 123) and hold 
to the derivation of the section on Spiritual Worship (6:2-6, 16-18) 
from S (in common with so much else of Mt's Sermon), but from some 
other context. 19 Our translation (Part III) will show in detail the 
interweaving effected by R between these two discourses, Filial 
Righteousness and Spiritual Worship. 

The mass of displaced Q material which Mt attaches after the New 
Torah section carries forward the theme of the latter, viz. : Heavenly 
Reward. The refrain "Thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall re- 
ward thee" seems to suggest to the mind of R mt the series: "Lay 
up Treasure in Heaven" (6:19-21 = Lk 12:33 f.); Singleness of Aim 
(6:22 f. = Lk 11:34-36), as against Serving Two Masters (6:24=Lk 
16:13), and Abiding Wealth (6:25-34=Lk 12:22-31). This seems 
to take the place, to his feeling, of the assurances of heavenly reward 
(or reward and punishment) with which the remaining four Sermons 
are concluded. Verse 34, a popular maxim equivalent to the English 
"Do not borrow trouble" serves as R's summing up of the great Q 
discourse on Abiding Wealth before he resumes the thread of the 
discourse on Filial Righteousness. Mt 7 :l-5 brings us again into coin- 
cidence with Lk 6:37-42 save that Lk hi verses 37-39 has a longer 
form, perhaps expanded by the addition of the logion on Blind Lead- 
ers, which Mt places in 15:14 and 10:24 f. The displacement this 
time appears due to Lk, perhaps induced by the saying which follows 
(Remove the beam from thine own eye before seeking to cure the 
blindness of others) . In reality the verses which follow (Mt 7 :3-5 = Lk 
6:41 f.) connect directly with the prohibition of censorious judgment 
(Mt 7:1 f = Lk 6:37 f.). Mt appends here another maxim (6:7), 
perhaps from Rabbinic sources, to close this portion of the discourse. 
It is difficult to see any connection between the theme "Judge not" 
and "Give not holy meat to dogs." Apparently Mt takes verse 5 
(Cure thine own blindness before offering treatment to others) as a 
discouragement to premature missionary activity. 

At this point occurs what we are disposed to call an example of 
Mt's habit of "bracketing." Part of the Q discourse on Prayer 
(Lk 11:1-13) had been incorporated by Mt in 6:9-15, omitting the 

19 A possible context for this P mt section is suggested in Appended Note VIII. 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 183 

narrative introduction and the accompanying parable. The remainder 
(Lk 11:9-13) is now brought in between the close of the section on 
Filial Righteousness and the colophon to the entire exposition of 
"the Law and the prophets" (verse 12 = Lk 6:31 displaced, plus 
the R clause). It is possible that this remainder of S q material was 
purposely reserved by Mt when making his supplement to 6:5-8 
in order to attach after the section on Reward in heaven (6:19-7:6) 
an assurance of heavenly blessing corresponding to the promises 
which he appends at the close of each of the remaining discourses. 
The promise "Your Father in heaven shall give good things to them 
that ask him" does make a good ending immediately before the 
(displaced) Golden Rule and the summing up, "This is the law and 
the prophets." On the whole, however, it seems more probable in 
view of several analogous cases, that the attachment is made at this 
point merely to avoid loss through oversight. Not wishing to discard 
so edifying a promise along with the very colloquial parable and the 
narrative occasion, R brings it hi at the first opportunity. 

He has similarly "bracketed" (if McNeile be right) a section of 
Q (5 :38-48) between the two parts of the New Torah section, the two 
logia on Singleness of Aim (6:22-24) between the two parts of the 
discourse on Abiding Wealth (Lk 12:33 f. and 22-31) and immediately 
after he "brackets" his Warning against False Teaching (7:15-20) 
between the two parts of Lk 13:23-27. Deliberate division would 
probably have resulted in a better connection. The process is probably 
to be accounted for by R's great familiarity with the material. Mem- 
ory suggests an appropriate portion of the discourse and this part is 
at once inserted where the context requires. The remainder comes in 
as soon thereafter as R can find a reasonable opening. Mt 7:7-11 is 
thus attached somewhat haltingly, just before the colophon "This 
is the law and the prophets." 

But the summary does not mark the end of the Discourse. It only 
concludes that portion of it which presents the true and right road 
to salvation. Before the close S (as represented by Q) had two more 
sections: In Lk 6:43 f. the first of these appears as an appropriate 
sequel 20 to the teaching on the Imitation of God. External conform- 
ity will not suffice, only deep-rooted likeness of nature will give the 
right to be called "sons and daughters of the Most High." This is 
the purport (in Lk) of the logion on figs and grapes coming only from 
a stock of their own kind. R mt has given this saying, as we shall 
see, a peculiar application to his special foes, the "teachers of lawless- 
ness," before coming again into the same channel of tradition as Lk 
in the final Application beginning "And why call ye me, 'Lord,' 
'Lord,' and do not the things which I say?" We must give our 

20 See above, p. 180. 



184 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

attention to this Matthean recast of S, placing it side by side with 
the Lukan transcript. The recast is "bracketed," as already de- 
scribed, between portions of the Q parable of the Near-shut Door 
(Lk 13:23-27), whose central verse alone fails to appear here because 
Mt gives its equivalent in 25:11 f. These enclosing sections must be 
presented first, thereafter the recast of Lk 6 :43 f . 

Lk 13:23 f., 26 f. Mt 7:13 f., 21-23 

And someone said to him, Lord, Enter ye in through the narrow 
are the saved few in number? But gate. For broad is the gate and 
he said to them, Struggle to enter roomy the road that leadeth to per- 
through the narrow (opening of the) dition, and many there be that go in 
door, for many, I say unto you, will by it; because narrow is the gate and 
seek to enter and will not be able. . . . straitened the road which leadeth 

into life, and few are they that find 
it. ... Not everyone that saith 
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter 
into the kingdom of heaven, but he 
that doeth the will of my Father 

Then shall ye begin to say: We did which is in heaven. Many will say 
eat and drink in thy presence, and unto me in that day: Lord, Lord, did 
thou didst teach (at. " walk ") in we not prophesy in thy name, and 
our streets. And he will say, I tell in thy name exorcise demons, and 
you I care not whence you come, in thy name do many mighty works? 
Depart from me, all ye workers of And then I will profess to them, I 
unrighteousness. never knew you, Depart from me, 

all ye that do lawlessness. 

In the expanded Matthean form of the discourse the figure of the 
thaumaturgists and exercisers who in Mt's own time (Mk 9:38 f., 
Acts 19:13-16) are calling Jesus "Lord" and practicing their magic 
in his name, but without obedience to his commandment, has so 
completely eclipsed in the evangelist's mind that of the mere late- 
comers of the parable, who had put off till too late the opportunity 
of repentance, that only a few traces of the original representation 
remain. Moreover the figure of the "door" (dvpa) of opportunity, 
already almost shut and soon to be wholly closed, with which 
Jesus rebukes the idle question as to the number of the elect 21 has 
disappeared behind the conventional figure of the "Gate" (TT&XT?) 
of Righteousness (Ps. 118:19 f.) and the Two Ways familiar in Pythag- 
orean and Orphic moral exhortation. The suggestion of the closing 
door, and especially the sentence "Depart from me ye workers of 
unrighteousness (d5t/aa) were called to Mt's mind by the opening 
words of the Q peroration "Why call ye me, 'Lord,' 'Lord,' and do 
not the things which I say? " This was enough to open the flood- 

21 A current bone of contention; see II Esdr. 7:47 f.; 8:1-3. 



THE FIRST BOOK OF MT 185 

gates of his invective against the "false prophets, thaumaturgists, 
and exercisers " who come professing the name of Christ (cf. 24:11 f., 
24). The remainder of the section is thus recast : 

Lk 6:43 f. Mt 7:15-20 

Beware of the false prophets which 
come unto you in sheep's clothing 
but inwardly are ravening wolves. 

By their fruits ye shall know them. 

For there is no sound tree that Surely men do not gather grapes 
produces rotten fruit, nor again a from thorns nor figs from thistles? 
rotten tree that produces sound So every good tree produces sound 
fruit. For every tree is known by fruits, but the rotten tree produces 
its own fruit; for men do not gather bad fruits. A good tree cannot bear 
figs from thorns nor -grapes from bad fruits nor a rotten tree sound 
thistles. fruits. Every tree that does not 

produce sound fruit shall be cut 
down and cast into the fire. So, then, 
ye shall know them by their fruits. 

The motive and method of this recast speak for themselves. It is 
hardly needful to call attention again to the parable (rewritten from 
Mk) of the Tares in the Wheat with its elaborate Interpretation, 
or to the parable of the Sorted Catch, or the supplement to 
the parable of the Slighted Invitation, or to the stereotyped 
phrases about casting into the fire etc., to recognize the hand of R mt . 
Verse 15 we have recognized above as his own personal heading for 
the section. Verse 19 takes its threat against the workers of "law- 
lessness" (avoula) from the warning of the Baptist (Mt 3:10 = Lk 
3:9). Nothing is new save the special application of the material 
found in S. The denunciation is so much to Mt's taste that he repeats 
it in substance in 12:33 against his other bete noire, the hostile scribes. 

Division B of Mt's first Book, unlike the four which follow, has 
no specially constructed close of its own. The closing parable of the 
incorporated discourse on Filial Righteousness serves the purpose 
better than any selection or composition of R's could do. Jesus 
commends the principle of Filial Righteousness which he has described 
as a true preparation for the coming Kingdom, comparing the man 
who follows it to one who builds a solid foundation on the rock. The 
fact that the auditors are still, as before, his personal following ap- 
pears from the question with which the peroration begins: "Why 
call ye me 'Lord,' 'Lord' ? " They are the Come-outers of Mk 
3:7, as above noted. The section required, of course, no special 
adaptation by R to the larger context of the Sermon as he has ex- 
panded it; hence the substantial coincidence of Mt's version with 



186 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Lk's. Mt's own perorations in 10:40-42; 13:47-52; 18:23-35 and 
25:31-46 are of different type. 

The structure of Book I, A and B, is carried through the remaining 
four Books, as we shall see. But we must be on our guard against 
too great assumption of uniformity. In reality conformity would 
better express the relation than uniformity, for in several respects 
the Sermon of I, B stands apart. As we have just observed it lacks 
Mt's customary application at the close of a sanction of reward and 
punishment. Mt's four later applications, like his four later rubrics, 
conform to S, not S to Mt. What is more striking, it consists ex- 
clusively of non-Markan material. These facts, and the apparent 
adoption of its "transition formula" to serve as a uniform coupler 
at the close of each of the succeeding Books, suggests 'that Mt's 
structural scheme was not so much an invention of his own as an 
imitation of what he found in S. Not, indeed, as Godet and some of 
the older critics imagined, an imitation by division into five books 
of discourses, for only this one of the Sermons has a non-Markan 
basis; but as an adoption of the single instance of the S discourse 
on Filial Righteousness to make of it in the end a model for the re- 
mainder of the group. Having thus traced the workmanship of R 
in Book I we may continue in Chapter XIII with the purpose and 
structural design of Book II. 



CHAPTER XIII 
THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 

FROM beginning to end Mt's second Book is adapted to the purpose 
of furnishing the Christian missionary or propagandist, a functionary 
whom we may designate a "gospeller," with the equipment and in- 
centive for his work. For in this evangelizing work healing and ex- 
orcism played a leading part. 

Not the outside references alone in Acts, in Paul, and in rabbinic 
literature, to these "signs of an apostle" give convincing testimony 
to the great effect the "gifts of healing" and "miracles" were ex- 
pected to play (and actually did play) in the spreading of the faith, 
but in Mk 3:14-19, where we first hear of the appointment of the 
Twelve, it is expressly said that Jesus appointed them "that he 
might send them forth to make the proclamation and to have author- 
ity to exorcise demons." Mt in transcribing this verse in 10:1 ex- 
tends the commission by adding one of his stereotyped phrases: 
"and to heal every disease and every sickness" (cf. 4:23 and 9:35). 
Mk himself in describing the report of the returning missionaries 
(6:12 f.) makes them appear to exceed their instructions by a similar 
addition: "They went out and proclaimed that men should repent; 
and exorcised many demons, and anointed with oil many that were 
sick, and healed them." The addition merely reflects the actual prac- 
tice of apostolic times as described in Jas. 5:14, but the coincident 
phrase /cat vovovs depaireveiv of Lk 9:1 and Mt 10:1 would hardly 
appear coincidently in Mt and Lk without authority in S. 1 

Division A 

Mt's second Book really represents a handbook for missionaries in 
what moderns would call medical service. Its narrative introduc- 
tion (II, A), therefore, naturally consists of stories of the exorcisms 
and healing miracles of Jesus, interspersed with a few anecdotes of 
the calling of disciples to accompany him. The particular problem 
involved in Division A is the arrangement of these anecdotes, which 
form a group of ten Mighty Works, subdivided at 8:17 by a Scripture 
Fulfilment with transition at 9:8 to the Markan group Mk 2:13-22; 

1 On the gift of "miracles" as characteristic of the primitive "apostle" see 
S. J. Case, Experience with the Supernatural in Early Christian Times, 1929, p. 25 f . : 
"Apparently in Paul's day power to perform miracles was assumed to be an 
apostolic credential (II Cor. 12:11 f.)." 

187 



188 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

5:1-43. This problem has been discussed by Sir John C. Hawkins 
under the title "Disarrangement of Mk in Mt 8-9" in The Expository 
Times (XII, 471 ff., and XIII, 20 ff.), and more recently in HS, p. 167. 2 
From the latter work we may cite a single sentence with its accom- 
panying footnote: 

In the course of chapters viii and ix (of Mt), between the first and 
second collections of sayings, we have a collection of ten miracles, which 
is made up in a very unchronological way, but which reminds one irre- 
sistibly of the enumerations in the Pirqe Aboth (v. 5 and 8), "Ten miracles 
were wrought for our fathers in Egypt, and ten by the sea. . . . Ten 
miracles were wrought in the Sanctuary. " 

The footnote attached to the clause "made up in a very unchrono- 
logical way" is as follows: 

Unchronological, because (i) Mt brings down to this division of his 
narrative three miracles which Mk and Lk place considerably earlier, 
viz. the healings of the leper (Mt 8:2-4; Mk 1:40-45; Lk 5:12-16), of 
Peter's wife's mother, with the subsequent cures at eventide (Mt. 8:14- 
17; Mk 1:29-34; Lk 4:38-41), and of the paralytic (Mt 9:2-8; Mk 2:1-12; 
Lk 5:17-26). And (ii) the two briefly recorded miracles in Mt 9:27-31 
and 32-34 are so strikingly similar to those recorded later on, viz. in Mt 
20:29-34 and 12:22-34 respectively (see pp. 93 ff.), that the suggestion 
naturally occurs that Mt inserted this anticipatory mention of them in 
order to make up the conventional number of "ten miracles." For it 
seems very difficult to suggest any other reason for inserting them. In 
these chapters the only important passage unconnected with the miracles is 
the call of Matthew, etc,, in 9:9-17: in all three Gospels it follows the heal- 
ing of the paralytic, and the anti-Pharisaic element in both incidents may 
have caused so close an association (whether documentary or oral) be- 
tween them that Mt transferred them both together. 

With the substance of this important extract we must express our 
full agreement. Mt's grouping is altogether "unchronological." 
Had he given any consideration to the order of Mk he could easily 
have made his extracts from Mk 4:35-5:20 in 8:23-34, from Mk 
2:1-22 in 9:1-17 and from Mk 5:21-43, conform much more nearly 
to the sequence of the Gospel from which he took them. Emphatically 
Mt's arrangement is not for historical but for pragmatic purposes. 

The specific nature of this pragmatic purpose is made apparent by 
the exceptions made to the rule of narrating miracles only. Sir John 
speaks of "the call of Matthew, etc., in 9:9-17" as "the only impor- 
tant passage unconnected with the miracles." But we must claim 
another exception. Surely the call of the scribe and "another disciple " 
drawn from S in 8 :19-22 ( = Lk 9 :57-62) is not a story of miracle. Nor 

2 Also in my own article "Editorial Arrangement in Mt 8-9" in The Expositor 
for March, 1920 (XIX, 111, pp. 200-218). 



THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 189 

was it needful, if the dominant motive in Mt's mind had been the 
formation of a group of Ten Mighty Works, to take up along with 
Mk 1:40-2:17 the succeeding context about the question of "the 
disciples of John" in Mk 2:18-22. However, the Q addition at the 
close of the series of Ten Mighty Works in 9:35-38, largely recast in 
R's own language (c/. 9:35 with 4:23 and 10:1) and leading directly 
to the Discourse of Division B, reveals Mt's chief concern. It shows 
that his really dominant interest was to convey the lesson of Wonder- 
working Faith, and this especially for the disciples' benefit. 

Sir John's suggestion of a numerical intention and his comparison 
to the groups of "ten mighty works" in Pirqe Aboth and other 
talmudic enumerations are important; but they do not supply the 
key motive for the composition as a whole. The curious appending 
in 9:18-26 after the proper climax of the raising from the dead of 
Jairus' Daughter of two more "briefly recorded" and really duplicate 
miracles, is probably to be explained by a numerical aim. But this 
effort to reach a total of ten appears quite belated, and thereby shows 
how it falls short of explaining the formation of the entire group. 
It looks as though it had not occurred to Mt to make up a total of 
ten until on reaching the climax at 9:26 he observed that he had re- 
lated thus far eight mighty works and that he need only attach (in 
brief mention) two more, to make up the parallel to the mighty works 
of Moses. The addition of Mt 9 :27-34 3 is too much like an after- 
thought to supply the constructive idea of the whole group. ' 

Chronology, we are sure, has nothing to do with Mt's arrange- 
ment of his material for Division A. Again the forming of a list of 
ten mighty works exhibiting the power of the "prophet like unto 
Moses" has little effect beyond the appending of 9:27-34. Division 
B supplies the key. The real motive for Division A is the teaching 
required by itinerant "gospellers" concerning the power of Wonder- 
working Faith. Indeed we have a striking proof that these "gospel- 
lers," to whom the Discourse of Division B is addressed, are really 
from the beginning foremost in Mt's mind in the notable change made 
by him at 9:8 in transcribing Mk 2:1-12. 

Mk 2:12 Mt 9:8 

So that all were amazed and glori- But the multitudes were afraid 
fied God, saying, We never saw the and glorified God, who had given 
like. such authority unto men. 

Mt is quite in earnest about the association of power to heal with 
"authority to proclaim forgiveness of sins" (c/. Jn 20:23; Jas. 5:15). 
The authority of Jesus Mt takes for granted; his interest is to show 
that it is transmitted to "men" who still go forth in Jesus' name 
3 Properly 33. Verse 34 does not appear in the better (/3) text. 



190 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

healing and proclaiming the (messianic) forgiveness of sins. Mt 8-9 
is therefore an introduction to the Missionary's Handbook of apos- 
tolic times. 

After Book I, with its description of Jesus' proclamation of re- 
pentance in view of the coming Kingdom and its Discourse on Right- 
eousness, it may of course be assumed that Jesus' disciples require 
no further instruction regarding their preaching. It is their mission 
of healing for which they need to be prepared, and the groups of 
anecdotes which follow, divided at 8:17 by a closing Scripture quota- 
tion, are directed to this end. From the constituent elements of the 
respective groups we may surmise that the intention was to furnish 
the needed instruction in three lines of teaching. The first group, in 
8 :1-17, relates three typical healings of Jesus: (1) Cleansing the Leper, 
verses 1-4, (2) Healing the Centurion's Boy, verses 5-13, (3) Heal- 
ing of Peter's Wife's Mother. Our surmise that these are intended 
as typical examples of Jesus' healing ministry, is borne out by the 
appended quotation from Is. 53:4 (Hebr. text), 4 "Himself took our 
infirmities and bare our diseases." 

A second group appears in 8:18-9:8. This again consists of a series 
of three works of superhuman "authority" arranged climactically: 
(1) Command of Stormy Winds, verses 23-27, (2) Command over a 
Host of Demons, verses 28-34, (3) Authority to Forgive Sins, 9:1-8. 

A formal difference between this second group and its predecessor 
is significant: It is prefaced in 8:18-22 by an extract from S q , of 
which Lk 9:57-60 gives a parallel extending to a third example. 
The extract describes the call of two disciples upon whom Jesus 
lays certain exacting conditions of discipleship. Of these candidates 
for the service the first is a scribe, whose offer to follow is met by the 
warning from Jesus to expect a wandering and homeless life. The 
second candidate is "one of the disciples" apparently not yet ready 
to break off home ties. Jesus warns him that the service called for 
is so urgent that even the claims of filial piety must give way to it. 
The prefacing of the second triad of miracles by this double warning 
of Q sayings can hardly have any other motive than to prepare appli- 
cants for the charge of "gospelling" on behalf of the churches by 
pointing out the severity of its requirements. Mt does not include 
the third instance of the S group as it stands in Lk 9 :57-62 prefixed 
to the Sending of the Seventy (10 :1-16) . This is the offer of "another " 
to "follow" after bidding farewell to his family, met by Jesus' re- 

4 On this extraordinary application of the locus dassicus for the Greek-speaking 
Church justifying its doctrine of forgiveness through the blood of the cross, a 
verse which in the LXX rendering reads "This man beareth our sins and suffereth 
on our account, " see Appended Note V. 



THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 191 

jection of those that "look back." The third instance would have 
been less suited to Mt's purpose. 

Formally this preface to the second group of miracles corresponds 
to that prefixed in 9:9-13 to the third group, the story of "Matthew" 
forsaking all to join the company of disciples. Pragmatically its 
motive can only be such as above described. 

The group of three miracles which follows the prefatory warning 
of 8:18-22 shows by the nature of the selected anecdotes, arranged 
not in chronological sequence but climactically, that all are intended 
to illustrate the "authority" of the Son of man committed to his 
representatives. The first example (Rebuke of the Storm regarded 
as of demonic origin; cf. Mk 4:39) and the second (Exorcising a 
Host of Demons) obviously illustrate the statement of Mk 3:15 
that the Twelve were to "have authority to cast out demons, and 
in addition the assurance of Lk 10:17-20 of authority "over all the 
power of the enemy." Mk's conception of Jesus' "authority" to 
exorcise is shown in 1:27 (where we should punctuate "A new teach- 
ing! With authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits and 
they obey him!"), also in 1:34, 39; 3:11 f., 15; 4:39, where the for- 
mula of 1 :25 recurs, and 5 :1-20, where we find the basis of the story of 
1:21-28 giving Mk's theory. 5 Mt avoids the theory but retains the 
basic anecdote. His third example in the group is Jesus' proof of 
Authority as Son of Man to Forgive Sins, even while as yet "upon 
earth." In Mk 2:1-12 this defense against the murmur of the scribes 
is made by Jesus' command to the paralytic, "Rise, take up thy bed 
and go to thy house." Mt transcribes (with his usual condensation) 
in 9:1-8. 

One need not be a practitioner of psychic therapy to understand 
that unauthoritative commands to the "possessed" are likely to be 
disastrous to the would-be exerciser. The apostolic Church told 
anecdotes of unauthorized exorcism in the name of "Jesus whom 
Paul preacheth" like that of Acts 19:13-16. Experience would soon 
teach that exorcists who attempted the work committed to them 
with a "doubtful mind" met as little success as when delivering the 
apostolic message of absolution without the conviction which had 
sounded through the assurances of Jesus. Hence the primitive re- 
bukes of "double-mindedness" (^vxlo.} in Jas. 1:6-8, Didache iv. 
4, Hernias Vis. iv. 4, etc., and the demands to exercise a faith that 
"doubts not whether a thing shall be, or shall not be" in Mk (11 :22- 
24) and S q (Mt 17:20=Lk 17:6). "Mountain-moving faith," as Paul 
also calls it (I Cor. 13:2), belongs to the gift of "miracles," but the 
gift is not bestowed on the half-hearted. Hence Mt's examples. 

5 See my article in ZNW _for 1905 (VI, pp. 153-158) entitled "The Markan 
Theory of Demonic Recognition of the Christ." 



192 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Exorcism was the special function of the apostolic "gospeller." 
If we observe how Mt's second group of "mighty works" is made up 
there will remain small room to doubt why it is framed as it is. Such 
room for doubt as might remain would disappear if note were also 
taken of Mt's special phrases and supplements interjected into his 
Markan material. In the Stilling of the Storm (8:23-27 = Mk 4:35- 
41) he interjects a rebuke of the disciples before that of the storm: 
"Why are ye fearful, ye half-believers" (oXtTOTrtoTOi). The Ger- 
asene (Mt "Gadarene") Demoniac story is so greatly condensed 
that the reader fails to see why a whole "herd" of swine are needed 
to afford lodgment for only two demons, for the "legion" feature 
has disappeared. That is one of the proofs of Markan priority. But 
a significant new feature is introduced of which we must take account 
presently. Finally the miracle of the Paralytic made to Walk, while 
deprived (by condensation) of the picturesque Markan feature of the 
letting down through the roof, with consequent obscuration of the 
clause "seeing their faith" (another proof of Markan priority), is 
adapted, as already shown, to emphasize the lesson to the "gospeller" 
that his message of (messianic) forgiveness of sins is also to be given 
on "authority" (cf. Jn 20:23; Jas. 5:13-15). Indeed the clause "I 
believe in the forgiveness of sins" would not appear as part of the 
apostolic baptismal formula had it not been the conviction of the 
apostolic Church (a conviction supported by the gift of "healings") 
that its messengers were commissioned of God "to declare unto his 
people (they being duly penitent) the absolution and remission of 
their sins." 

To be of any value this "absolution," like the exorcisms, would 
have to be "with authority." We have defined as the probable pur- 
pose of the section Mt 8:18-9:8, to encourage the applicant ready 
to undertake the "gospeller's" work undeterred by a life of homeless 
wandering, detached from close family ties, by assuring him that 
"authority over unclean spirits" and "over all the power of the Evil 
One" is committed to him if only he does not "doubt in his heart." 
If the compiler's aim was indeed, as we have surmised, to send forth 
not only exercisers and healers but "men" conscious of a divine 
authorization to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of their sins, 
then no selection could have been better among the accounts of 
Jesus' ministry of faith than just the series: Command of Stormy 
Winds, verses 23-27; Command of Hosts of Demons, verses 28-34; 
Authority to Forgive Sins, 9:1-8. All three examples are naturally 
taken from Mk, but chronological order is totally disregarded, the 
examples being given in climactic sequence; for "authority to for- 
give sins " can come from God alone. 

The third group of Faith Wonders, like the second, is prefaced by 



THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 193 

a narrative illustrative of the Call of Disciples. From Mk 2:14-22 
Mt takes the story of the Call of Matthew, substituting this name for 
"Levi" in the original (if our conjecture made above, pp. 39 ff. be cor- 
rect) because he found in his List of the Twelve (10:3) the gloss "the 
publican" attached (as he supposed) to this name. 6 To the ques- 
tion why he did not break off at verse 13, but transcribed the remain- 
der of the Markan paragraph down to verse 17 = Mk 2:37 f., it is 
perhaps a sufficient answer to observe that Mt finds a place for 
practically everything in Mk, and that no other can be suggested 
more apt to satisfy him than this. Nevertheless we may suggest 
also that there is more of appropriateness to the inclusion here of the 
reference to the "disciples of John" than at first sight appears. To 
the apostolic Church the great distinction between the baptism of 
John and its own was that John's did not convey the "gifts of the 
Spirit" including that of "miracles" (Acts 8:13 Simon Magus in 
church tradition is reckoned a disciple of John and 18:24-19:7; 
Jn 10:41). R mt , therefore, might consider it appropriate to retain 
here the somewhat depreciatory reference in verses 14-17 to the fast- 
ings of John's disciples and the Pharisees (cf. Mk 9:29, /? text). 

One may be in considerable doubt as to the limits of Mt's final 
group of Faith Wonders which begins with the Call of Matthew 
(9:9-13), but touches of R's hand both in the Markan portion (9:18- 
26) and the non-Markan (verses 27-33) leave little uncertainty as 
to the didactic purpose. Condensation of the story of the Healing 
of the Bloody Flux and Raising of Jairus' Daughter (Mk 5:21-43) 
has reduced its compass by nearly two-thirds while enhancing the 
wonder beyond the psychologically credible (another proof of Markan 
priority). Thus Jairus evinces from the outset an incredible degree 
of faith by coming to ask from Jesus an unheard-of miracle: "My 
daughter has just died; but come and lay thine hand upon her and 
she shall live." In the interwoven Healing of the Bloody Flux similar 
condensation leaves only the moral of the story, "Courage, daughter, 
thy faith hath saved thee." In 9:27-31 there are resemblances both 
to Mk 10:47; 8:23, 26; 1:43-45 and to Mt 12:22-24 which fully justify 
Hawkins' verdict above quoted concerning the editorial origin of 
this and its companion miracle in verses 32f . 7 Nevertheless the faith 
lesson is so far from being forgotten in the Healing of the Blind that 
Jesus is made even to put the question "Believe ye that I am able 
to do this?" before accomplishing the miracle. Thus the teaching 

8 Intended by the glossator, who followed the "Western" reading of Mk 2:14, 
for "James son of Alphaeus." 

7 On the phraseology of verses 32 f . as indicating editorial composition see 
Allen, ICC ad loc. and cf. McNeile, Additional Note, p. 128. Verse 34 is spurious; 
cf. /3 text. 



194 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of the indispensableness of faith, which was taken over from Mk 
in 9:2 and 22, is not lost sight of. There is a difference, however, from 
the lesson as inculcated in the preceding group. In the Stilling of the 
Storm (8:23-27 = Mk 4:35-41) the moral is the Indispensableness of 
Faith for the worker of the miracle. In the group with which we are 
now dealing it is the Indispensableness of Faith in the beneficiary. 
This seems to be the point emphasized in all of the miracles of this 
group save the last. 8 We may therefore regard it as probable that 
it furnished to R his pragmatic motive in grouping together the ma- 
terial of 9:9-34. 

Whence, then, does he derive this non-Markan material? Should 
we, or should we not separate the two supplementary miracles ap- 
pended by R in verses 27-34 from the two-fold Markan miracle 
which precedes in 9:18-26? Certain phenomena not yet considered 
confirm the verdict of their editorial and duplicate character. There 
is a curious doubling of the recipient in the Healing of the Blind 
(9:27-31) which had occurred previously in the Gadarene Exorcism 
(8:28-34). It is commonly explained by the idea of compensation, 
as though R might have felt it necessary to make good the omission 
of the Capernaum Exorcism (Mk 1:23-28) so closely similar to the 
Gerasene in the utterance of the demoniac, or for the omission of the 
Opening of Blind Eyes at Bethsaida (Mk 8:22-26) because of its 
anticipation in 9:27-31. The explanation is hardly adequate. The 
device would be unintelligible and implies a limit on the number of 
Jesus' miracles which R certainly did not feel. More probably R's 
aim is apologetic and harmonistic. His omission of the Exorcism in 
the Synagogue (Mk 1:23-28) was intentional, as can be seen from 
his rejection of the Markan theory. 9 Sceptics had doubtless pointed 
to the duplication of Mk 1:24 in 5:7. But the cancellation of one of 
the two exorcisms in Mt could not silence opponents. The Church 
would be accused of repeating the same story under inconsistent 
circumstances. Mt's doubling device made it possible to throw re- 
sponsibility for a variant tradition on "the other witness." The same 
simple device would serve to explain certain suspicious likenesses 
between the two accounts of Jesus' Opening of Blind Eyes in Mk 
8:22-26 and 10:46-52. Mt betrays his consciousness that the two 
may be mere variants by blending features from each in his confla- 
tion of 9:27-31; but he leaves room to evade the charge of variation 
in the testimony by summoning two witnesses. On the other hand 
he does not hesitate in verses 32 f. to create new objections by "fash- 

8 The failure may be due to R's selection of a story closely linked in the tradition 
with the preceding (Opening of Blind Eyes, Unstopping of Deaf Ears; cf. 12:22 f.), 
or, if verse 34 be genuine, to the bitter anti-Pharisaism of R. 

9 See my article in ZNW above cited, p. 170. 



THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 195 

ioning a short account of the healing of a deaf demoniac from phrases 
which for the most part occur again in the Gospel." 10 There would 
seem to have been a shortage of material suitable for completing the 
decad of Mighty Works. 

The conjecture is allowable that the qriginal group of Faith Won- 
ders leading up to the Mission of the Twelve consisted as in Mk 
4:35-6:6 of a pentad, beginning, as in Mk, with the Stilling of the 
Storm, and closing with the Raising of Jairus' Daughter. 11 Indeed 
Mk himself may derive his pentad from some orally current group 
of this kind. R mt will then be responsible for prefixing to Mk's pentad 
the triad descriptive of Jesus' own work as the Healer predicted in 
Is. 53:4 constructed from S and Mk in 8:1-17, for expanding it 
by the insertion of 9:2-17 (=Mk 2:1-22), and for supplementing it. 
by the added pair of miracles of 9:27-33, thus raising the total num- 
ber of miracles to ten. He may also have replaced other material by 
Markan in the pentad. The suggestion is made only as a possibility, 
yet there are several considerations which speak in its favor. 

1. The Scripture fulfilment closing the paragraph 8:1-17 is cer- 
tainly from N; for it cites Is. 53:4 in the Hebrew text in a sense 
incompatible with that given it by all the Greek-speaking churches. 
The verse marks a division between the prefixed triad and the rest 
of the decad not elsewhere exemplified in it. The combination of 
materials and arrangement of their order in the triad are character- 
istic. The Leper comes first, to illustrate 5:17 ff. ; then the Centurion's 
Boy, illustrating the universalism of the gospel. Peter's Wife's 
Mother comes last because of verse 16, to which the Scripture ful- 
filment had doubtless already been attached in N. 

2. The Q element of 8:18-22 certainly figured in S as introductory 
to the Mission of the Twelve; because such is also its sequel in Lk 
9 :57-60. The Q material continues in 9 :35 ff. 

3. The continuous Mk section 9 :2-17 is in part foreign to the theme, 
as well as locally and chronologically out of order. We should expect 
a group of anecdotes of Faith Wonders to consist of not more than 
five, and to culminate in an account of Raising the Dead. A group 
having greater appropriateness to the immediate theme comes to 
the surface if we leave out of account 9:2-17 and 27-34. The 
remainder combines Q (8:18-22) with Mk. For those who follow 
Streeter in the "four-document" theory 8:18-34 and 9:18-26 would 
be due to M, the insertion of 9:1-17 (with editorial adjustment in 
verses 1 and 18) and appending of verses 27-33 to R. It is safer not 
to venture beyond the supposition that the Charge to Gospellers in 

10 Allen, ICC ad loc. Note the use of Mk 1 :45 in 9:30 f ., and cf. McNeile ad loc. 

11 Such is the actual order of Lk 8:22-9:6; but this may be due solely to the 
anticipation of Mk 6:1-6 in Lk 4:16 ff. 



196 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

S had also its introductory group of five (?) Faith Wonders here 
represented by those of Mk 4:35-5:43. 

R concludes Division A of his second Book by repeating in 9:35 
his formula of 4:23 coined on the basis of Mk 1:39: "And Jesus went 
about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and 
preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and 
every sickness" (cf. also 10:1). It is worthy of note that he has in- 
cluded all the available material of Mk down to Mk 2:22, not except- 
ing the disobedience of the healed leper to Jesus' command (Mk 1 :45) 
which Lk 5 :15 smoothes away. Mt transfers it to the account of the 
two Blind Men of 9 :30 f . There is condensation leading to the drop- 
ping out of non-essential elements of particular anecdotes, as of 
Mk 1:35-39; 2:2-4, and parts of 4:35-5:43; there is also complete 
rearrangement of order with anticipation of material required for the 
didactic purposes defined above. The List of the Twelve (Mk 3 :14-19) 
naturally finds its place before the Sending (Mt 10:2-4). The only 
omitted anecdote is that of Mk 1:23-28, whose unavailability has 
been explained. This leaves nothing unutilized of Mt's primary 
source save what was directly connected with the next Discourse, 
the two Sabbath Conflicts of Mk 2:23-3:6, and the logion on Spiritual 
Kin with the parenthesis, Mk 3 :22-30. This parenthesis is a flagrant 
case of prolepsis, constituting one of Mk's explanatory digressions 
to offset the logion. Mt restores it to the place which Lk also attests 
as its true context in 12:22 ff. = Lk 11:14 ff., but not without leaving 
a substitute in 9 :32 f . Thus the disarrangement of Mk's order is much 
less than at first sight appears. It amounts only to the collecting of 
the Ten Mighty Works from Mk 1-5 as an appropriate prelude to 
the Mission of the Twelve. We have seen some reason to believe that 
even for this dislocation there may have been precedent in some form 
of primitive Manual for Gospellers earlier than either Mk or Mt. 

Division B 

The highly composite nature of the Discourse to which Mt has thus 
led up hardly needs demonstration. In the translation of Part III 
the reader will have opportunity to see how the dovetailing method 
of Mt, already observed in Book I, is carried out in detail. Our intro- 
duction to the Discourse must limit itself to an indication of its gen- 
eral structure and outline, to its purpose as shown by adaptation of 
material, and to certain inferences as to the environment which 
might give rise to the Discourse as a whole and to its constituent 
parts. 

The general structure and outline are easily determined. A Prel- 
ude ( 9:36-38) drawn from Mk and Q (Mk 6:34; Lk 10:2) states 



THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 197 

the purpose of the Sending. The Apostles are to be (a) leaders of the 
shepherdless flock, (b) harvesters of the ripened crop, figures which 
doubtless reflect the authentic feeling and attitude of Jesus. There- 
after follows the Sending. This is coincidently stated by both sources 
[Mt 10:l = Mk 6:7 = Lk 9:1 (10:1)], but is interrupted in Mt by a 
parenthetic List of the Twelve which varies somewhat from Mk 
3:16-19 = Lk 6:14-16. The account of the Sending continues in 
verses 5-8 with a specific Charge, limiting the mission of the Twelve 
to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and defining its message and 
its activities. The nucleus of this Charge is from S q (Lk 9:2 = 10:9). 
The limitation (verses 5 f .) embodies in verse 5 a restriction histori- 
cally justified by the testimony of Paul (Rom. 15:8; Gal. 2:9), but 
not elsewhere recorded. R himself supplies the embroidery of verse 6 
(from 15:24) and 8 (cf. ll:5 = Lk 7:22). Thereafter follow the Di- 
rections for the Work (verses 9-15 = Mk 6 :8-ll = Lk 9 :3-5 = 10 :4-12) . 

A totally different situation is presupposed in the paragraphs which 
follow down to the closing logion of verses 40-42. Here we find the 
proper ending of the Mission of the Twelve, for in Lk 10:16=Mk 
9:37b this appropriate promise forms the close of the Discourse. 
Mt, after his custom of elaborating sanctions for commandments, 
expands the nucleus by adding from unknown sources the promise 
of reward for hospitality to "prophets" and "just men" (cf. 13:17) 
and that from Mk 9:41 so splendidly elaborated in the Judgment 
Scene of 25:31-46. Between this close of 10:40-42 and the Sending 
to which it belongs R has interposed two long paragraphs, the first 
of which (10:16-25 = Mk 13:9-13 = Lk 21:12-17, 19 with Lk 12:11 f. 
and 6:40) warns of Persecution to be endured from a hostile world; 
the second (verses 26-39 = Lk 12:2-9, 51-53; 14:26 f.; 17:33 with 
touches coincident with Mk 4:22; 8:38 and 34 f. and 13:12) encourages 
martyrs to Fearless Confession. 

These two interjected paragraphs carry the reader far beyond 
the situation contemplated in the Sending into Galilee. No return 
of the Twelve is contemplated, the horizon extends temporally to 
the second Coming (verse 23) geographically to the ends of the 
earth (verse 22). The persecutions to be suffered are at the hands of 
"governors and kings," before whom confessors will be brought to 
trial "for a witness to them and to the Gentiles." The Spirit of their 
Father will be given them as their Advocate at these tribunals to 
teach them what they shall say (verses 19 f . = Lk 12 :11 f .) . 

The framer of this expanded form of the Markan Discourse (R mt ) 
has obviously lost sight of the situation with which he began (another 
indication of Mk's priority) . The scenes are no longer those of hospi- 
table Galilee, where a kindly reception could be anticipated and, 
according to Lk 22:35, was actually experienced. Galilee and the 



198 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

mission to heal and proclaim the coming kingdom has faded out of 
the picture. In its place has come the world-wide persecution of the 
apostolic and post-apostolic age. The compiler has ceased to be a 
historian, he is now a preacher addressing his own age under color 
of prediction by Jesus. For indeed according to Lk 22:35-38 and Jn 
15:16-16:33 Jesus did give just such warnings, predictions, and prom- 
ises, though on an occasion explicitly distinguished from this Galilean 
Sending. They form part of a different Sending hi his parting words 
in the upper room under the immediate shadow of the cross. Nor 
is it Lk and Jn alone who indicate the proleptic character of these 
Matthean extracts. Mk also in 13:9-13 brings down the main por- 
tion of the paragraph to the later date, so that Mt himself on reach- 
ing this context in ch. 24 only condenses and paraphrases, refusing 
to duplicate what he had already given here in the very words of Mk. 

The Encouragement to Martyrdom (verses 26-39) is equally 
proleptic. Here the situation is again that, not of Galilee but of a 
hostile world in which the Christian confessing his Lord invites a 
martyr's doom. Again the parallels bear their witness to the anachro- 
nism. Mk 4:22 = Lk 8:17 = 12:2 f. is indeed a stray, and Mk 8:34 f. 
and 38 may not be in their original setting. But Mk 13:12, which 
repeats in substance Mt 10:34-36 = Lk 12:51-53, makes the same 
tacit protest as before against Matthean displacement. 

In view of previous experience of Mt's method of agglutination it 
is clear that in his second as in his first Discourse he has built up a 
great composite. The nucleus of the Mission of the Twelve in Galilee 
(10:1, 9-15) has been elaborated into a general commission into all 
the world and down to the end of time. 

Both purpose and date of this composite are easy to infer. If 
the reference of Mk 13 :9-13 to such defenses as those of Paul before 
Felix, Agrippa, and Nero, in combination with other indications of 
that earlier Gospel compel us to bring its date down to post-apostolic 
times, certainly the adaptation of this Markan material in Mt 10:17- 
22 compels us to descend to a still later date for Mt. The pragmatic 
motive also speaks clearly for this period of world-wide persecution. 
Nor does the inclusion of the prohibition of leaving "the cities of 
Israel" in 10:23 militate against it. As McNeile well says, 

It is not the band of missionaries, but the community of the disciples 
which is to flee, and the cities of Israel, i.e., the Jewish cities in Palestine, 
will afford them enough places of refuge, because the Son of Man is coming 
so soon. 

Removal from Jerusalem is certainly contemplated, but (if McNeile 
be right) the flight from the siege to Pella described by Eusebius 
is not in the writer's thought. The headquarters of the Church may 



THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 199 

pass "from city to city" to avoid persecution, but only a Jewish 
city (Kokaba?) may be considered their capital. Antioch, and prob- 
ably Caesarea as well, are thus excluded. Doubtless the writer's 
expectation was that Jerusalem itself would be the scene of the Lord's 
return. But twice already the Church had been driven from Jeru- 
salem, once by persecution in A.D. 42 and once by the siege in A.D. 67. 
Mt could not but sanction this, but he forbids permanent removal 
to a Gentile (or Samaritan?) city. The prohibition is like the title 
"the Holy City" in 4:5 and "the city of the Great King" in 5:35 
in the witness it bears to a typically Jewish-christian source; but cer- 
tainly R was not conscious of any incompatibility between it and the 
command to Go into all the world and preach (28:19). For him, as 
for his source, the earthly center of the Church remains in "Israel" 
until the Lord's return; preferably in Jerusalem, but with the occa- 
sional necessity of taking refuge in some other "city of Israel." 
North-Syrian (Nazarene) Jewish Christianity, as we know, was 
heartily in sympathy with Gentile missions. 

The case is somewhat different with the prohibition to preach in 
Samaria or a Hellenistic town (10:5). We cannot imagine this logion 
being composed by the author of 28:19, but it obviously could be 
incorporated by him if he regarded the limitation as temporary. 
Such a standpoint would be precisely that of the Preaching of Peter, 
which forbids missions to the Gentiles until after "twelve years" 
from the crucifixion. The date 42 A.D. coincides with the persecution 
of Agrippa and the martyrdom of James son of Zebedee. We know 
from Paul that the limitation was still felt by Peter and James and 
John at a date even later than this (Gal. 2:9). It is disregarded in 
Mt 28:19. Hence the incorporation of the ancient limitation in 10:5, 
even if the sense R gives it be not its original sense, is no proof of R's 
early date. Individual P logia such as 7:6 and 10:5 may well be primi- 
tive, but the working over of the Charge to the Twelve from the 
primitive form shown in Mk 6 :7-13 to that of a Discourse to Gospel- 
lers who must be warned of world-wide persecution and encouraged 
to fearless martyrdom is one of many proofs that this Gospel as a 
whole does not antedate the persecution of Domitian. 

If by "early" a date be meant within the age of the Apostles, as 
Clement defines it, that is, before the death of Nero, we cannot 
affirm it even for Mk. In fact the present section suggests that not 
even S, earlier as it seems to be than either Mt or Mk, can go back 
to this age. We must observe the fact that the conflating of the two 
discourses so clearly distinguished in Lk 22:35 f., the one a Mission 
in Galilee, the other a Farewell of Warning as Jesus goes to his fate, 
does not originate with R mt , but had at least a beginning in S. This 
appears from Mt 10:16. 



200 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

For no ingenuity can dispel the fact that the anachronistic transi- 
tion in Mt 10:16 from the Directions to the Twelve (10:9-15) to 
Warnings of Persecution (verses 17-23) is not the work of R but of 
some predecessor. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst 
of wolves" is out of all harmony with the preceding sending to "the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel." Yet the connection belongs unmis- 
takably to the common non-Markan Source (cf. Lk 10:3). Its position 
in Mt is indeed less incongruous than in Lk, but it belongs to S q and 
in this context. 

Another phenomenon is difficult to explain if R be made responsible 
for the prolepsis. If the Warning of World Persecution and Promise 
of the Spirit (Mt 10:17-25) stood in S at the late point in the story 
to which Mk 13:9-13; Lk 22:35 ff.; Jn 15-16 and its own implica- 
tions would refer it, why does it appear as part of the Galilean min- 
istry in Lk 12:11 f.? The same question may be asked regarding the 
Encouragement to Fearless Martyrdom (Mt 10:26-33). If the pro- 
lepsis is due to R mt why should this paragraph also appear in Lk 
12:2-9? There seems to be no escape from the inference that hi S 
itself a process of agglutination had already taken place similar to 
what we observe in Mt, and that this agglutination involved dis- 
placement for didactic purposes of sections such as those just cited. 
On the other hand we must recognize that other collections made on 
the biographic principle of arrangement exemplified in L and Lk 
preserved in some cases a more historical order. Without this latter 
assumption it would be difficult to account for the more authentic 
order of Lk 22:35 ff. and Jn 15-16. 

This conviction is confirmed when we observe the treatment of 
the Mission in Galilee in Lk 9 and 10. Here the critic counts himself 
most fortunate in that Lk, unlike Mt, has not interwoven Mk and 
S q , but under the device of two Sendings, one of the Twelve, another 
of the Seventy, 12 has given us in 9:1-6 his transcription of Mk 6:6-13 
and in 10:1-16 his transcription of S. In the latter we do find inter- 
esting and valuable variations from Mk which carry out other indi- 
cations from Mk 1:1-13 and elsewhere that Mk is dependent on S. 
But we do not find what we naturally hope for, an order superior to 
Mk's. On the contrary Lk 10:1-24 (for we must include the entire 
context both of S q and P Ik ) we meet with some of the most con- 
spicuous examples of collocation ad vocem (e.g., verses 12-14, and 
17, 20, 21, "joy," "rejoice in the Spirit," 22, 23 "turning to the dis- 
ciples," 13 besides the anachronistic "Behold, I send you forth as 

12 The fact that this is mere literary device is proved by the reference in 22:35 
to the direction as to equipment as having been addressed to the Twelve, whereas 
in 10:4 it is addressed to the Seventy. 

13 Cancelled in verse 22, a text. 



THE SECOND BOOK OF MT 201 

sheep in the midst of wolves" (verse 3) already referred to. On this 
showing S, when at last we are able to place it alongside of Mk in 
its own connection, does not indicate that freedom from pragmatic 
agglutination which we anticipate in really primitive documents. 
On the contrary, so far as the instance goes, it suggests that even the 
S q discourses also came from groupings originally built up to pro- 
vide appropriate readings for particular occasions, such as the in- 
struction of neophytes (Filial Righteousness) or the ordination of 
"gospellers." As critical analysis traces the ultimate sources further 
and further back the connection revealed is not as a rule more chrono- 
logical and historical but more pragmatic. 

The composition and structure of Mt's second Book throws an 
interesting light in two directions. It enables the critic, as just ob- 
served, to form a clearer conception of the process by which groups 
of "sayings and doings of the Lord" may have been collected in days 
preceding the Reminiscences of Peter's Preaching which we know as 
the Gospel of Mk, an authoritative composition whose outline be- 
came dominant for all later evangelists. The method is traceable 
even earlier still when our Second Source, soon to be combined with 
Mk by Lk and Mt, was in process of formation. The Gospel critic 
should avail himself of every hint of this method whether as exempli- 
fied in the Redesammlung of S or the SII^TJO-IS of L, in order to pave 
the way toward reconstruction. 

But the historian of the apostolic Church will also find fruitful 
a comparison of this Second Book of Mt with the directions of Didache 
xi-xiii for the Church's reception and treatment of itinerant "proph- 
ets and apostles." As one reads the examples drawn from the sayings 
and doings of the Lord collected in Mt 8-10 in their grouping and 
application, their exhortations to self-renunciation and devotion 
even to martyrdom, their encouragements to an utterance of the 
message of healing and forgiveness of sins with "authority," their 
assurance of victory "over all the power of the enemy," one may 
almost reproduce in imagination such scenes of ordination as Timo- 
thy's (I Tim 4:13-16) with its exhortations from the elders to "en- 
dure hardship," to cultivate "the gift that is in thee," to rebuke the 
false teachers, and in the end, if need be, to emulate the fortitude 
of those who like the Lord and his apostles had given their blood in 
faithful "witness." Looked at in the light of such scenes the "read- 
ings, exhortation, and teaching" of this Book of the Itinerant Gospel- 
ler have a touch of the sublime. 



CHAPTER XIV 
THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 

As before, the purpose and structure of Mt's Third Book are de- 
termined by its Discourse, which in this case is 'taken as a whole from 
Mk 3:20-4:34, and naturally reproduces the theme of Mk, viz., the 
Formation of the Spiritual Israel, a group set in contrast with Jesus' 
kindred according to the flesh. 

Mk applies to this theme in common with all the New Testament 
writers the Isaian prediction quoted by Paul (Rom. 11:8) of the Deaf 
Ear and Blind Eye which the Servant (Israel) will turn to the proph- 
et's message; but for his own special part he treats the teaching in 
parables as a purposed veiling of "the mystery of the kingdom" 
from "outsiders" so that only Jesus' true followers may understand 
the truth. Mt takes over and enlarges the Markan discourse in its 
framework, but he prefixes as his Narrative Introduction (Division 
A) an equivalent treatment of the same subject derived in the main 
from S q . 

The basic elements of this apologetic for Christians as the true 
"sons of God," are always the same: Israel, save for a remnant of 
the lowly, has turned a deaf ear to the divine invitation. But this 
was in accord with the divine intention; for the Scriptures testify 
that such would be the case with this "disobedient and gainsaying 
people." The theme is ancient. It is the classic plaint of the Wisdom 
of God that her saving message is rejected by the learned and pros- 
perous and accepted only by the elect. In pagan literature it finds 
expression in the Prooemium of Heracleitus no less than in later 
philosophic or mystic complaints of men's dull ears; in the Prophets 
and late Jewish literature it becomes fairly stereotyped in passages 
such as II Chron. 36:15 f.; Jer. 25:3-7; Prov. 1:20-31. Particularly 
in the Wisdom lyrics of Ecclus. 24, Wisdom of Solomon passim and 
Bar. 3:9-4:4, Israel is praised as the people with whom rejected 
Wisdom has taken refuge, the people of divine revelation. Ps-Aristeas 
(139 f .) and Philo x make this the ground of Israel's claim to elective 
Sonship. Hence we cannot view it as an indication of dependence on 
Gospel literature when Paul in I Cor. 1:18-2:16 takes up the same 

1 De conf. Ling. 28. " Those who have real knowledge of the one Creator and 
Father of all things are rightly called ' Sons of God.' And even if we are not yet 
worthy to be called ' Sons of God/ we may deserve to be called children of his 
eternal 'image' the most holy 'Logos.'" Cf. with this Jn 1:12, 18; I Jn 3:1-3. 

202 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 203 

theme declaring the revelation of the mystery of God to have been 
made through the Spirit of Christ to "babes," to the confusion of 
the wisdom of the wise and the counsel of the scribes. Paul merely 
transfers to the humble group at Corinth the immemorial theme of 
the Revelation of the Mystery to Wisdom's children, a theme which 
Hellenistic and Jewish literature alike, but especially Jewish, apply 
as their doctrine of the "elect." 

This theme I have endeavored to present in an article entitled 
"The Son as Organ of Revelation" in HThR IX, pp. 382-415 (Oct., 
1916). It supplies the indispensable key to the versified Hymn of 
Wisdom in Mt ll:25-27 = Lk 10:21 f., a Jewish Wisdom lyric which 
is really central to both forms of the apologetic (cf. Mk 4:11 with 
various parallels). "The Son" who speaks in the poem is Israel, 
to whom the world must look as the elect hierophant of the mys- 
teries of God. It is placed in the mouth of Jesus by S, to whom 
Jesus is the true incarnation of this redemptive "Wisdom of God." 
The actual source from which the two stanzas are derived by S q has 
disappeared, like that of the similar extract in Mt 23:34 f.=Lk 
11:49 f. quoted from "the wisdom of God," that is, the books of the 
Sages, 2 but the contents are unmistakably Jewish. Israel speaks, 
the people despised of men but chosen of God for His redemptive 
message to the world: 

I 

I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 

Because thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, 

And didst reveal them unto babes. 

Yea, Father, for such was thy divine decree. 

II 

All things were revealed to me by my Father, 
And none hath acknowledged the Son save the Father, 
Neither hath any known the Father save the Son, 
And he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. 

In such hymns the oriental mystic is taught as a neophyte to give 
thanks for the divine revelation made known to the group of the 
"elect" who are "Wisdom's children," as Norden sets forth in his 
typical Hermetic "Thanksgiving." 3 The Jewish hymn-writer, adapt- 
ing the theme to his conception of Israel as the "elect" Son of 
God, by whom the universal Father sends saving gnosis into the 
alienated world (cf. Is. 53:11; Ecclus. 24:30-34 and see above on 
Mt 5:9), rejoices in the elective "decree" (tvSoda) of the Lord 

2 As Clement of Rome, ad Cor. liii. quotes Prov. 1:23-33 under the title "All- 
virtuous Wisdom. " 

3 Agnostos Theos, 1913, p. 293. 



204 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of all creatures, who from among all has adopted Israel to be his 
"son," whereof the proof is divine revelation (cf. Dt. 4:6-8, Philo, 
ubi supra, and Pirqe Aboth III, 19-23). Because thus endowed 
Israel is God's son in a unique sense, his "chosen" or "beloved" 
son, alone possessed of the knowledge of God, or better having been 
known of him (Am. 3:2; cf. Gal. 4:9; I Cor. 13:12). This gnosis of 
Jehovah's chosen son gives him his mission to the world as a nation 
of priests to "sprinkle many nations" and bring them into knowledge 
of the true God. By his "knowledge" the righteous Servant-Son, 
in spite of his humiliation and suffering, will "justify many." The 
poem stands in the same line of succession to Deutero-Isaiah as 
the (perhaps contemporary) Wisdom of Solomon. S has apprecia- 
tively laid claim to it as voicing the true spirit of Christianity, which 
in the teaching of Jesus carries out this ideal (12:17-21). Either 
S, or more probably R mt , in supplementing the quotation, em- 
bodies further the Invitation from Ecclus. 51 called the Prayer 
of Jesus son of Sirach, a song of Israel as divine hierophant to the 
nations. 4 

This Isaian theme, developed as we have seen by the Sages, forms 
the core and kernel of the parallel agglutinations of Mk and S. 
We shall see presently how these two build up (not wholly independ- 
ently, since Mk shows knowledge of S q , but with divergent aims) 
their apologetic for the Christian brotherhood, the spiritual kindred 
of Jesus, as the true heirs of this divine commission to the world. 
But it is important first of all to realize that neither S nor Mk is 
original in this appropriation to Christianity of the doctrine of the 
"Hiding of the Mystery" in order that the "Son" may be its hiero- 
phant to the world. Not even Paul, who repeatedly employs the 
thought (Rom. 16:25 f.; I Cor. 2:6-16; Eph 3:9-11; Col. 1:26 f.), 
can be said to do more than take over a commonplace of post-Isaian 
Judaism. 5 Out of many pre-Christian illustrations we may take this 
from the Assumptio Mosis i. 12-14, where Moses as Mediator of 
the redemptive Covenant and author of the story of the Creation 
in Genesis, recalls to his successor Joshua this "revelation of the 
(cosmological) mystery": 

4 Norden, Agn. Theos, p. 345 f., quotes Hierocles of the "Pythagoreans" as 
maintaining that "the wise man" is the only hierophant. Ps-Aristeas (139-140) 
makes the Egyptians themselves acknowledge that God appointed the Jews to 
this function. For the adaptation of the hymn by Mt and Lk (from S) see Easton 
on Lk (1926), p. 166 f. 

6 Bergmann (Judische Apologelik, p. 61) quotes Num. R. 14 and Pesikta R. 5 
where Hos. 8:12 ("If I had written all my precepts") is used to show that the 
oral law is still a revelation belonging exclusively to Israel. The Gentiles (who 
have the written Torah) say: "We are Israel, we (too) are God's children." But 
the key to the mysteries is still retained in the oral tradition. 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 205 

God created the world on behalf of his own people. But he did not 
choose to reveal this beginning of the creation from the foundation of the 
world, in order that the Gentiles by their disputations about it might con- 
vict one another (of ignorance). Therefore he designed and devised me 
for I was made ready before the foundation of the world that I should 
be the mediator of his covenant. 

When, therefore, Mk 4:11 gives as the reason for Jesus' teaching 
in parables the logion "To you (my spiritual kindred) it is given to 
know the mystery of the kingdom of God, but to the outsiders all 
things take place in parables" he is not advancing anything new 
except the application of the figure of "hiding the mystery" to the 
teaching in parables. Indeed we can trace the logion not merely to 
several other Christian sources besides Mk and the full quotation 
of S q , but to pre-Christian as well. Thus in an uncanonical "gospel" 
employed by Clement (Strom. V, x, 69) and in the Clementina (Horn. 
xix, 20) it takes the form "My mystery belongs to me and to the 
children of my household" and this in turn to Theodotion's rendering 
of Is. 24:16 "My mystery belongs to me and mine." 6 

Division A 

The fact that Mk now departs from his usual role to report "say- 
ings" rather than "doings of the Lord" compels Mt in combining 
Mt's parable chapter with S to reverse in some degree his usual 
method, drawing his narrative mainly from S q . Thus in Book III 
Division A has a somewhat larger proportion of teaching material, 
due to its preponderance in S; only the two Sabbatarian Conflicts 
of Mk 2:23-3:6, left over from Book II, are drawn upon by Mt for 
his narrative. His material in 11:2-12:45 is therefore substantially 
S q . Apart from the two Sabbatarian Conflicts we need except only 
a few verses of P material, where we must either assume that Lk has 
for some reason cancelled, or else ascribe them to R, whether by his 
own composition, or by drawing from N. 

This great preponderance of S q in Mt 11-12 is of untold value to 
the critic in determining the original nature of S, which can now be 
reproduced consecutively for several paragraphs. Its value is un- 
fortunately diminished by the fact of rearrangement, undertaken 
by Mt as elsewhere in conformity to his pragmatic aim. In this case, 
as we have seen, his aim is mainly determined by the apologetic of 
Mk 3:20-4:34, but comparison with Lk will enable us in some meas- 
ure to hold in check Mt's propensity for pragmatic rearrangement 
and determine in broad outline the structure and lesson of S. 

6 Theodotion is adopting the current rabbinic rendering; cf. Sanhedrin 94:1: "A 
bath qol resounded saying 'My secret is mine. My secret is mine.' The prophet 
answered, How long? He answered, 'Robbers rob,'" etc., Is. 24:16. 



206 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

In comparing the Q element of Mt 11-12 with its Lukan form we 
are struck by the fact that both evangelists make a common be- 
ginning with the Question of John's Disciples (Mt ll:2-6 = Lk 
7:18-23), though Lk has prefaced this with two illustrative anecdotes, 
one of Q material, the other P lk (L?). Both continue this opening 
by a discourse of Jesus denouncing the deafness of Israel to John's 
message and to his own as well (Mt ll:7-19 = Lk 7:24-35). These 
two long paragraphs, uninterrupted on either side save by the inter- 
jection of extraneous logia by R mt in verses 12-15 and by R lk in 
verses 29 f., constitutes by far the longest consecutive block of S 
which has survived. We naturally look to this longest fragment of the 
Source to throw most light on its character. 

Lk continues after the. Rebuke of the Unreasonable Generation 
with a further anecdote illustrative of the grateful acceptance of the 
"glad tidings" on the part of the "publicans and sinners," perhaps 
from the same source (L?) as the Widow's Son at Nain. This story 
of the Penitent Harlot is equally appropriate to the context and 
almost equally hard to imagine as intentionally omitted by Mt. 
In 8:1-3 Lk has a substitute (Ministering Women, 8:1-3) for Mk's 
Spiritual Kin anecdote; the latter he transposes to the end of the 
Parable chapter (Lk 8:19-21 = Mk 3:31-35), doubtless deriving 
the substitute also from his L source. Thus he too makes up a group 
illustrative of the Spiritual Kin idea. He makes his motive clearly 
apparent by collocation, repeating significant clauses. Thus the 
discourse on Filial Righteousness ends with a parable contrasting 
the fate of "Everyone that cometh unto me and heareth my words 
and doeth them" with the fate of one "that heareth and doeth not." 
Next comes the Believing Centurion, whose faith and obedience are 
contrasted with the unbelief of Israel (7:1-10) and the (supplemental) 
story of the Widow of Nain. The Denunciation of the Generation 
Deaf to God's Messengers (7:24-35) is followed by the story of the 
Penitent Harlot, whose grateful acceptance of the gospel of forgive- 
ness is contrasted by a parable with the coldness of the Pharisee 
(7:36-50). As an introduction to the Parable of the Sower, addressed 
to those that "have ears to hear," we have, as above noted, a sort of 
substitute in Ministering Women (8:1-3) for the Markan Introduc- 
tion, but Lk shows that he has not lost from view the key-thought in 
transposing the Spiritual Kin story; for he changes the wording of the 
logion to read "My mother and brethren are these that hear the word 
of God and do it" (Lk 8:4-21 = Mk 3:31-4:34). Thereafter, having 
switched on to the track of Mk, Lk continues to draw from this source 
alone for several chapters. 

For the S q complex beginning with the Question of John's Disci- 
ples, however, there can be little doubt that in Lk's mind the linking 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 207 

pragmatic motive is a contrast of the lowly company of those that 
"hear the word of God and do it" with the Pharisaic people that have 
turned a deaf ear to God's messengers. In other words the Lukan 
motive in this entire "smaller Interpolation" is basically identical 
with that of Mk and Mt. The chief difference is the same as noted 
in connection with the discourse on Filial Righteousness: In Lk, as 
in Jas. 2:5, the social distinction of rich and poor largely takes the 
place of the religious distinction between Synagogue and Church. 
The latter comes to the fore in Mt. Lk's point of view is more like 
that of Paul in I Cor. 1:18-31. The L supplements expand the S q 
context in this sense without altering the general motive. 

If, now, with this basic unity of motive in mind, we turn back to 
Mt's arrangement of his Q material we find the story of the Believing 
Centurion, which so appropriately prefaces the discourse in Lk, 
already anticipated by Mt in 8:5-13. Critics are often disposed to 
claim as an indication of S q connection the nearness on both sides 
to the discourse on Filial Righteousness. This may be correct. As we 
have seen, in Lk at least the key-clause linking the close of the ser- 
mon to the chapter following it, "Everyone that cometh unto me 
and heareth my words and doeth them," supports such a sequence. 
Proceeding with Mt 11:2 ff. we find nothing to break the coincidence 
in order of Mt and Lk save the slight editorial supplements above 
mentioned in Mt 11:12-15 and Lk 7:29 f. The uncertainty comes 
after the denunciation of the Generation Heedless of God's Mes- 
sengers (Mt ll:7-19 = Lk 7:24-35). Here Lk switches to Mk for a 
series of chapters, Mt, on the contrary, continues the theme of the 
upbraiding of Israel for its resistance to the divine message. The 
"mighty works" which were the substance of Jesus' reply to the 
Question of John's Disciples now occupy all of Mt's attention, so 
much so that he even changes the wording of the closing verse from 
"Wisdom is justified by her children," as Lk logically reads, to 
"Wisdom is justified by her works." 7 He adds, thereupon, in verses 
20-24 a paragraph denouncing the cities of Galilee "where most of 
his mighty works were done" attached by Lk ad vocem to the Charge 
to the Seventy after 10:12. The logion implies, of course, that these 
Galilean cities have had, and have rejected, their opportunity, so 
that the Lukan setting cannot be historical. On the other hand Mt's 
arrangement is no better; for if these verses are allowed to stand 
where Mt places them they imply that the whole complex, beginning 
with the Question of John's Disciples, was framed to stand at the 
very close of the Galilean ministry. Jesus looks back on a completed 
career of preaching and healing in Galilee. But as regards the struc- 
ture and contents of S, it is scarcely imaginable that a source which 

7 Some texts correct to "children" to accord with Lk. 



208 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

brought squarely to the front the question of the messianic calling 
of Jesus, and rested its proof on the "mighty works" should not have 
related in the preceding story at least some proportion of the phenom- 
ena referred to: "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, 
the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised 
up and the poor have glad tidings proclaimed to them." To this 
we must recur, Mt's order is our present concern. 

The paragraph on the Unbelieving Cities of Galilee is followed 
immediately in Mt by the logion on the Revelation of the Mystery 
to the Son, after which Mt takes the same course as Lk hi switching 
to his Markan source (Mt 12:1-21). 

The Q parallels between Mt and Lk are not resumed until, after 
Mt's extract of ten verses from Mk and Lk's of 18 from L plus more 
than 100 from Mk, we suddenly find the two transcribers of S again 
in coincidence at the end of Lk 10, where the Unbelieving Cities of 
Galilee meet us at Lk 10:13-15, and shortly after in 10:21 f. the 
Revelation of the Mystery to the Son. The inference is unavoidable 
that in S the order was substantially as in Mt 11, though Mt has not 
withheld his hand from the customary supplementation from other con- 
texts in 11:12-15, and may have appended 11:28-30 from Ecclus. 51. 

The question naturally arises for the analyst of sources whether 
the break occasioned in the S q connection by the interjection on the 
part of both Mt and Lk of Markan material after the Woes on the 
Impenitent Cities, marks a real ending of the section in S, or whether 
the context continued. If we may rely at all on what I ventured to 
call in BGS the method of "pragmatic values" the answer to this 
question must be that in S the theme of "Hearing and Doing" the 
will of God as the note of true sonship really was continued; the 
Exorcism of the Dumb Devil (Mt 12:22 ff. = Lk 11:14 ff.) formed 
the narrative bridge to a denunciatory discourse against spiritual 
Deafness and Blindness whereof the element taken over by Mk was 
the parable of the Sower, or, as we might better call it, of the Recep- 
tive and Unreceptive Soils. 

This parable, which survives to us only in the transcription of 
Mk, both Mt and Lk having here followed Mk in preference to S, 
is easily shown to be an erratic block in our second Gospel. This 
appears partly from its interrupted Interpretation (Mk 4:10, 13-20) 
where the hand of Mk is easily recognized in verses 11 f., partly from 
its position, which should be at the end of the day's discourses (verses 
10, 13). Actually in Mk's arrangement the Interpretation has as 
its sequel: (a) a miscellaneous group of logia (verses 21-25); (b) two 
more parables apparently addressed to the same multitude as before 
in spite of their dispersal in verse 10 (verses 26-29 and 30-32); (c) 
a formal conclusion (verses 33 f.). 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 209 

In addition the Interpretation, verses 10, 13-20, gives a totally 
different sense to the clause "asked him (about) the parables" in 
verse 10 from the sense given it in verses 11 f., where it is taken to 
mean "Why dost thou in teaching use parables (sc. "riddles," 
"enigmas")? The logion on "hiding the mystery" (verse 11) gives 
Mk his opportunity for bringing in his theory that the use of parables 
was such a "hiding." But in verses 13-20 the sense of the disciples' 
question is taken to be "asked him the meaning of the parable(s)." 
The parable of the Receptive and Unreceptive Soils is then explained 
in a sense which shows distinctly why it ends with the climactic cry 
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear " (verse 9, repeated in 
verse 23). The Interpretation is indeed too much allegorized to 
emanate from Jesus himself, moreover it introduces allusions to 
"tribulation and persecution" which belong to the later time. But 
there is no reason why we should deny its derivation from S. Indeed 
there is very much to commend this. 

As we have just seen, the real point of the parable, underscored by 
the pointed saying, "He that hath ears to hear let him hear," is the 
differentiation of the receptive from the unreceptive as the objects 
of Jesus' mission. This explains the Interpretation, which, while not 
strictly true to the intention of the parable in its application to 
various classes of Galilean hearers, is closely in line with the general 
theme of this section of S q , and clearly accounts for the adaptation 
both in Mk and the parallels. The "good and honest ground" sure 
to yield fruit represents "Wisdom's children" by whom she is justi- 
fied, or, as Lk has it, "they that hear the word of God and do it," the 
true kindred of Christ, a brotherhood of the "Israel of God." Thus 
Lk gives us, as usual, the true sequence, though his switching from S 
(or L) to Mk after 8 :l-3 obscures the connection. He is also correct in 
breaking off after Mk 4:24 f., which he repeats from S q in 19:26=Mt 
25:29. Mk adds this from the parable of the Entrusted Funds after 
the S q conclusion (verse 23) to support his anti- Jewish application: 

Mk4:24f. Lk8:18 

He also said to them, Take heed Take heed, therefore, how ye hear; 
to what ye hear; with what meas- 
ure ye mete it shall be measured to 
you, and more shall be added 8 . 

For whosoever hath, to him shall be for whosoever hath, to him shall be 
given, and whosoever hath not, from given, and whosoever hath not, from 
him shall be taken away even that him shall be taken away even that 
which he hath. which he seemeth to have. 

8 Mk's additional logion from S is given by Lk in 6 :38 = Mt 7 :2. Mt's correction 
in omitting as duplicate the entire group of appended logia Mk 4:21-25 is best of 
all. 



210 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The two further parables which Mk appended at this point (Mk 
4:26-29, 30-32) were recognized by Lk as forming no part of the 
original connection. The second of the two (the Mustard Seed) he 
gives along with its companion parable (the Leaven) from S in what 
maybe taken as its true connection (Lk 13:18f., 20f.=Mt 13:31-33). 

How, then, can we be sure that the grouping of Lk: Believing 
Centurion (7:1-10); [Raising of Widow's Son (11-17)]; Question 
of John's Disciples (18-23); Generation Deaf to God's Messengers 
(24-35); [Penitent Harlot (36-50)]; Ministering Women (8:1-3), 
represents in general the order of S? 

The answer to this queston will be found by comparison of the 
grouping of Mk 3:20-4:34 with its two parallels. Both Mt and Lk 
introduce the Blasphemy of the Scribes from Jerusalem (Mk 3 :22-27 
=Mt 12 :22-30 =Lk 11:14-23) by the Exorcism of a Dumb Devil, 
an anecdote enlarged upon in various contexts as symbolical of the 
dumbness (and blindness) of Israel, the dumb and blind Servant of 
Is. 42:18-20; cf. Mk 7:32-37; 8:22-26 and touches in 9:14-29 with 
Mt 9:32 f. and 12:22-24 = Lk 11:14 f. This forms in S q (Mt 12:22 ff. 
= Lk 11:14 ff.) an appropriate beginning for the discourse on Spirit- 
ual Deafness and Blindness ("having eyes but seeing not, and ears 
but hearing not"), especially when expanded as in Mt 12:22-24 
to include an Opening of Blind Eyes. 9 Accordingly it is followed in 
both Mt and Lk by the story of the wilful blindness and deafness of 
the scribes and Pharisees who seek to persuade the multitude that 
Jesus is in collusion with Beelzebub. Mt and Lk also agree in placing 
slightly later the Blessing on Seeing Eyes and Hearing Ears, Lk 
bringing this into direct connection with the Revelation to Sons of 
Mt 11:25-27: 

Mtl3:16ff. LklO:22f. 

But blessed are your eyes for they And turning to the disciples pri- 

see, and your ears because they hear, vately he said : Blessed are the eyes 

Verily I say unto you that many which see what ye see. For verily 

prophets and righteous men desired I say unto you that many prophets 

to see the things which ye see, and and kings desired to see what ye see, 

saw them not, and to hear the things and saw it not, and to hear the things 

which ye hear and heard them not. which ye hear and heard them not. 

The things seen and heard are of course the healings and glad tidings 
to the poor which Jesus made the burden of his answer to the Bap- 
tist. They are to believing eyes and ears tokens of the approaching 
kingdom of God. 

9 In compensation for an omission. The Opening of Blind Eyes (Mk 8:22-26) 
originally formed part of the S connection as shown in my article "Redaction of 
Mt 12" (JBL, XLVI), but was cancelled as a duplicate of Mk 10:46-52. 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 211 

After 12:30 Mt digresses, led partly by Mk 3:28-30, which he 
blends with S q , partly by his bitter anti-Pharisaism, which leads him 
to compose out of various S logia the denunciation of verses 33-37. 
But in verses 38-42 and 43-45 he is again drawing from S in coinci- 
dence with Lk 11:29-32, 24-26, though he has transposed the order 
of the two paragraphs. 10 For, as shown in my article "The Redaction 
of Mt 12" " we should follow the order of Lk 11:17-26. Israel is 
God's "dwelling" (mishkari) now purged of evil powers by His 
intervention. Either He must be received now to dwell among His 
people, or the evil powers will return with seven-fold virulence. Thus 
the S Q theme is still the "evil generation" which in spite of momen- 
tary awakening by the call to repentance of John has in the end 
turned a deaf ear to the Jonah-like summons of the prophet and a 
blind eye to the gracious works of healing of Jesus as well as a deaf 
ear to his winning words of the Wisdom of God. The same theme of 
Spiritual Blindness appears again in Mt 16:l-4=Mk 8:ll-13 = Lk 
11:29; 12:54-56, for whose relation to the discourse we must refer 
the reader to the article above cited. Reasons are there given for the 
belief that a story of the Opening of Blind Eyes has been displaced 
from the connection, but the general trend of thought is unmis- 
takable. The Exorcism of the Dumb Devil was made the starting 
point for a discourse on those who because they have hearing ears 
and seeing eyes are the true sons of the kingdom, Jesus' Spiritual 
Kin. 

For this reason the Reproach of the Blind Generation (Mt 12:43-45 
= Lk 11:24-26) is followed in S q by the interruption of the woman 
who invokes a blessing on Jesus' mother (Lk 11:27 f.) and who is 
answered by the same logion on Spiritual Kin which in its Markan 
form (Mk 3 :31-35) is introduced at the same point of the story by 
Mt 12:46-50. In other words Mt here switches to Mk, while Lk 
11:14-36 continues to follow S, thus giving us the link of connection 
leading over to the parable of the Receptive and Unreceptive Soils 
in the S form. To make room for this Lk transposes its Markan 
parallel to the end of the parable. 

Whether we should regard Lk 8:1-3 as part of L's addition to S 
and as supplementary to it, or as part of the original S is uncertain. 
The one thing which clearly appears is that all branches of trans- 
mission concur in their witness to a primitive grouping in which 
the central theme was: "They that have eyes to see and ears to hear 
are the true brotherhood of the sons of God. This evil and perverse 
generation, wilfully blind and deaf to God's messengers, is condemned 
in the judgment by the repentant Ninevites and the Queen of the 

! verses 43-45. 



j. ujuc juuguiciii) uy LUC icpcjui/aui) J.NI.LU 

10 Mt 12:38 is the response to the warning of 
"JBL, XLVI, 1/2, pp. 36-38. 



212 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

South." Mk, therefore, who interjects the Blasphemy of the Scribes 
into the midst of his form of the logion on Spiritual Kin (Mk 3:22-30), 
and again in 4:11 f. throws in his version of the logion on Hiding 
the Mystery of the Kingdom, together with the quotation of the 
classic Isaian passage about Eyes that see not and Ears that hear not 
(Is. 6:9 f.), and who further attaches after the Interpretation of the 
Parable in 4:21-23, 24 f. a miscellaneous group of S q logia about 
seeing and hearing the revelation, is not so far from the original 
S q group as might at first appear. The basic theme everywhere is: 
"The Sons of the Kingdom, to whom the divine revelation is given, 
are they that hear the word of God and do it." 

Our analysis of Division A of Mt's third Book has shown that 
from 11:1 to 12:45 it represents in the main a solid and nearly con- 
secutive block of S, from which a few short sections have been slightly 
displaced, as in the anticipation of the Believing Centurion (8:5-10), 
the combination of the Opening of Blind Eyes with that of Deaf 
Ears in 12:22, and perhaps the slight postponement of the Blessing 
on Eyes and Ears that see and hear (13 :16 f .). R mt has also appended 
a few logia in 11:12-15 drawn from other S contexts, and perhaps 
expanded the Thanksgiving for the Revelation to Babes by adding 
from Ecclus. 51 the Invitation of the Wisdom of God. Also the change 
of "children" to "works" in 11:19 is surely his. Otherwise he takes 
chapter 11 from S practically as it stood. 

In chapter 12 Mt has used more of Mk. Beginning with the two 
Sabbatarian conflicts of Mk 2:23-3:6 and the attached description 
of the Multitude in Mk 3:7-12 he has added a rabbinic justification 
to the former Sabbatarian conflict in 12:5-7, quoting Num. 28:9 f. 
and Hos. 6:6 together with his own adaptation of the logion 12:41 f., 
"Here is a greater matter (/j.etov) than the temple," that is, human 
need. In the latter Sabbatarian conflict he has interjected an argu- 
ment from S q (12:11 f. = Lk 14:5). Whether we may infer that Mk 
was drawing from the same source is doubtful, also the S connec- 
tion. More important is Mt's addition of a borrowed proof-text to 
Mk's description of the Multitude in 12:18-21. As I have shown 
in my article "The Redaction of Mt 12" (JBL, XLVI, 1/2 (1927, 
pp. 27-29) 12 the quotation belonged originally to the story of the 
Baptismal Vocation. R mt attaches it to Mk 3:12 to counteract the 
Markan theory of demonic recognition. He appends verse 21 from 
Is. 42:4c LXX to verses 18-20 which quote Is. 42 :l-3 from the Hebrew 
text, and thus brings to a close his description of the nature of Jesus' 
work. 

We must also recognize touches from R's pen in the Exorcism of 
the Dumb Devil, where he re-enforces by adding the opening of blind 

12 See also Appended Note V. 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 213 

eyes as well as deaf ears, and by making the multitude cry "Can this 
be the Son of David? " We must further credit him with the composi- 
tion of verses 31-37 from Markan and S q material. Of this some 
had been used elsewhere while 36 f . may represent a rabbinic saying. 
He also transposes verses 38-42 with 43-45 and appends an explana- 
tory clause to verse 45. Otherwise ch. 12 also is simply transcribed 
from S. 

At this central point in the structure of Mt we may well pause to 
avail ourselves of the exceptional opportunity afforded by Division 
A of Book III for an appreciation of the nature and composition of 
S. The departure of Mk, Mt's primary source, from its usual practice 
of limitation to narrative in order to illustrate in a chapter of parables 
(Mk 4:1-34) its theory of the use of parable to hide the mystery of 
the kingdom from "outsiders," has led Mt also, in adopting the 
theory, to a departure from his own ordinary practice. He now re- 
sorts chiefly to S for his narrative introduction, a departure highly 
serviceable to the gospel critic bent on ascertaining as much as 
possible of the nature of this Second Source. Because of the change 
of role on Mk's part Mt correspondingly reverses his practice. S 
became his reliance for section A, while section B, the Discourse in 
Parables, was based almost exclusively on Mk. The result is a very 
large and almost unbroken block of Q material in Mt 11-12, whose 
general theme we have ascertained to be such as to account for all 
three dependent reproductions. 

In Mt and Lk there can be no question that the group of anecdotes 
and discourses had at its beginning (with, or without, a preliminary 
story or two of healings productive of faith among the common 
people) the Question of John's Disciples, squarely presenting the 
issue of messiahship. The "works of the Christ" are here made the 
basis for Jesus' authority as God's Messenger to summon Israel to 
Repentance and to proclaim a gospel of deliverance from bondage, 
of healing and forgiveness of sin in view of the approaching kingdom. 
The claim is coarsened in Mk 1:40-2:22 into an assumption of per- 
sonal authority on Jesus' part enforced by miracle. In S it is strictly 
in line with prophetic precedent. Jesus appeals to the mighty works 
and their reception on the part of the lowly as evidences not of his 
own greatness but of the present working of the Spirit (or "finger") 
of God, who through the agency of His messenger is thus evidencing 
the overthrow of Satan's control and the near approach of the divine 
dominion. On this point the contrast between Mk's use of the parable 
of the Strong Man Spoiled (Mk 3:23-27) with the S q original (Mt 
12:25-29 = Lk 11:17-22) is highly instructive. In S q the parable 
reflects the promise of Is. 49:24 f . : 



214 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or his lawful captives be de- 
livered? But thus saith Jehovah, Even the captives of the mighty shall 
be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered; for I will 
contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I myself will save thy 
children. 

Jesus is arguing from the overthrow of Satan's power that God himself 
has drawn near as the great Deliverer. In Mk the application is made 
to Jesus (3:28-30), so that interpreters generally assume that the 
"stronger," who delivers 'the captives, is Jesus instead of Jehovah. 
This difference in point of view is important; not merely as a proof 
of dependence on the side of Mk, but for the light shed on the Christol- 
ogy of S. All three witnesses agree, however, in making this second 
appeal to the "works of the Christ" continuous with the preceding 
appeal addressed to the disciples of John, the connecting link being 
the Denunciation of the Faithless Generation in Jesus' discourse 
about the Baptist (Mt ll:7-19=Lk 7:24-35) and the incident of the 
Exorcism of the Dumb Devil. 

"The works of the Christ" and their reception on the one side 
by the "evil and adulterous generation," which only sweeps and 
garnishes the dwelling of Jehovah but gives Him no entrance be- 
cause blind to the real signs of His Coming, and on the other by the 
believing "little ones," is still the theme in Mt 12:38-45; and this 
connection is confirmed by Lk whether we follow his placing of the 
Woes on the Unrepentant Cities and the Revelation to Babes (Mt 
ll:20-27 = Lk 10:13-15, 21 f.) or that of Mt. We are still under 
control of the same theme after the interruption of the logion about 
Spiritual Kin, whether in its Markan form (Mk 3:31-35) or that of 
S (Lk 11:27 f.), and the same continues in the parable of Receptive 
and Unreceptive Soil (Mk 4:1-23) with its Interpretation (verses 
10, 13-20) and appended logia (verses 21-23). The unbroken thread 
of common interest is: "They that hear the word of God and do it 
are the true elect, the brotherhood of Christ; to them are committed 
the oracles of God." 

With the insight thus afforded into the controlling interest of S it 
becomes impossible to regard it as a mere disjointed collection of 
sayings. The impression we receive from the opening S q sections 
descriptive of the Baptist's Mission and the Vocation and Tempta- 
tion of the Christ, is confirmed by the long extracts made by Mt and 
Lk from that portion which affords a retrospect over Jesus' whole 
career of preaching and healing in Galilee. The question may still 
remain open in what sense, if any, the story of the Passion and Resur- 
rection were covered. But after our survey of Division A the question 
is not open whether S was in any sense a "gospel." A writing which 
makes central the redemptive mission of Jesus, which brings squarely 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 215 

before the reader the issue, "Art thou he that should come, or look 
we for another? ", which defends Jesus' claim to authority as the 
ultimate Messenger of God by appeal to his "mighty works," con- 
gratulating those who hearken to the message as his true brethren 
in the revelation of the divine mysteries, and which condemns those 
who hearken not as spiritually deaf and blind, is certainly entitled 
to the name "gospel," a name which first appears in its pages (Mt 
ll:5 = Lk 7:22). What better claim have the later compositions 
which build on Mk? Now we have seen reason to believe that the 
form of S was mainly that of a collection of agglutinated discourses, 
linked together by a relatively slender thread of narrative. But 
the narrative was there, and must have had an ending as well as a 
beginning. 

The subject of the book was the redemptive career of Jesus. It 
included enough at least of such anecdotes as the Believing Centurion 
and the Exorcising of the Dumb Devil, to make its later references 
to Jesus' work of healing and exorcism sound reasonable, not leaving 
the reader open-mouthed before the question, What were these heal- 
ings and exorcisms?, as we, alas, must stand at a loss before the 
reference to the mighty works done in "Chorazin." 

No; S was not a Spruchsammlung. If it deserved no better than to 
be called a Redesammlung at least its ordering of its agglutinated 
discourses was not illogical nor inartistic. The drama which it cov- 
ered was perhaps unduly limited to the ministry of preaching and 
healing in Galilee, but it was a real drama, whose climax is fore- 
shadowed in the story of the Temptations: The Son of God who re- 
jects the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them to win the vic- 
tory of faith in the guidance of his Father. S was " a gospel." 

Division B 

In view of what has been already said of the Markan basis of Mt's 
Third Discourse and of the many evidences which have already come 
to light of his capacity for composition when occasion seems to him 
to call for it, we may deal very briefly with Division B. Its only Q 
element, save for the added parable of the Leaven, is the Blessing 
on Eyes that See (Mt 13:16f. = Lk 10:23 f.), which we have en- 
deavored above (p. 210) to place in its true connection. The re- 
mainder Mt transcribes from Mk, recasting in the case of the par- 
able of the Patient Husbandman (13:24-30), or adds out of his 
mental "treasure." 

The juxtaposition in Mt and Lk of the pair of parables Leaven and 
Mustard-seed (13:31 f., 33) indicates that both stood together in S. 
The fact that Mk draws from this source in his Mustard-seed parable 
is shown by the agreement of Mt with Lk against him in points of 



216 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



phraseology: \6,@wv avOpaxros (Mk om.), a^py (Mt) = mjirov (Lk), Mk 
T?}S yrjs, dkvdpov (Mk om.), '&> rots /cXaSots (Mk i>7r6 T^V ovacb'). But it is 
not easy to say from what part of S the pair were derived. In Lk they 
are curiously isolated by the strange intervention of the Sabbatarian 
Conflict of 13:10-17, separating them from the eschatological group 
12:35-13:9 whose appropriate conclusion they would otherwise form. 
On the other hand the Sabbatarian Conflict forms a pair with 14:1-6, 
and we have seen that obscure connections exist between these two L 
anecdotes and Mt's insertion (12:12 f.) into Mk's Sabbatarian Con- 
flict (Mk 3:l-6=Mt 12:9-14). The notable lack of connection in 
Lk is doubtless due to his combination of S with L. But the fact 
that Mk also (followed by Mt) brings hi the Sabbatarian Conflicts 
of 2:23-3:6 just before the Slander of the Scribes from Jerusalem 
(3 :22 ff.) suggests that these stories of healing and exorcism on the Sab- 
bath preceded the group on Revelation of the Mystery to Babes. 
The relation of Mt to the group seems to be remote and due only to 
L's dependence on S. 

Apart from his indirect use of S by transcription from Mk, Mt's 
use of it in Division B is thus seen to be very meager. He is clearly 
aiming to make up a total of seven parables of the kingdom, all 
beginning with the formula: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto" 
and ending with his usual sanctions of reward and punishment "in 
the end of the world." Only the last of the group (the Drag-net, 
verses 47 f.) without the Matthean addition of verses 49 f,, suggests 
the possibility of an S nucleus forming a pair with the Responsive 
and Unresponsive Soils (verses 3-9). Its placing at the end would be 
natural for Mt. The introduction before it of the pair Hid Treasure 
(verse 44) and Costly Pearl (verses 45 f.), recalls the evangelist's 
addition of the pair of "mighty works" to complete a total of ten in 
9:27-34. Their insignificance bears witness to a paucity of material 
quite incompatible with the rich resources which would have been 
at his disposal had he had access to L. Whether Mt here drew upon 
Church or Synagogue tradition, or merely exercised his own faculty 
of composition it is quite hopeless, and perhaps equally needless, to 
enquire. 

Per contra the great extension and full elaboration of the material 
bearing on the dangers of false teaching speak eloquently for Mt's 
date, environment, and special interest. After what has been already 
said in our General Introduction it is needless to particularize. R mt ' s 
recasting of Mk's parable of the Patient Husbandman (Mk 4:26-29; 
cf. Jas. 5 :7 f .) to introduce the incongruous feature of the sower of tares 
has its parallel in his supplement to the parable of the Slighted 
Invitation (Mt 22:11-14). The motive is illustrated in the recasting 
of 7:13-23, the supplement 24:11 f., and the specially contrived 



THE THIRD BOOK OF MT 217 

Interpretation artificially introduced in verses 36-43, whose phrase- 
ology is unmistakably Matthean. 13 

Thus the make-up of the Discourse in Parables, used by Mt as a 
closing pronouncement of doom on the unrepentant after the Galilean 
ministry, much as his final Discourse (chh. 23-25) pronounces doom 
on unrepentant Israel, reflects the lineaments of the compiler. R mt 
need scarcely have added his eighth parable comparing the disciple 
who has fully apprehended the teaching to a "scribe made a disciple 
to the kingdom of heaven" in order to complete his self -portraiture. 
To this appendix inMt!3:51f. might well be applied the figure 
employed by Zahn of the curious item in Mk 14:51 f. It is "the ar- 
tist's signature subscribed in an obscure corner of the canvas." 

13 For the two Scripture fulfilments introduced in verses 14 f . and 35 see Ap- 
pended Note V. 



CHAPTER XV 
THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 

WITH the transition formula of 13 :53 appears a marked difference in 
Mt's use of his two principal sources. As concisely expressed by 
McNeile "Mt returns to his Markan source, having left it (verse 34) 
at Mk 4:34. The intervening material (Mk 4:35-5:43) he had al- 
ready used. From this point he follows Mk's order to the end." 

The critic's task in tracing out the structural composition of the 
two remaining Books is in consequence much simplified. It is not that 
Q entirely disappears. A few logia are embodied in the discourse on 
Church Administration to which Book IV leads up, and the discourse 
on The Consummation (Chh. 23-25) to which Book V leads up is 
largely drawn from S. Neither can it be said that the fundamental 
plan of Discourses introduced by a Narrative Division is discontinued. 
The distinction is still observable, but it rests on Mk's previous use 
of the same general method. For the built up discourse of Mk 9 :33-50 
is certainly the basis of Mt 18:1-35 and bears the same relation to the 
preceding narrative. In the remainder of Mt, accordingly, even more 
than before, it is not really the structure and composition of Mt that 
we are studying, but only Mt 's improvements on the structure and 
composition of Mk. In two respects these improvements have a 
bearing on the question of sources which we cannot overlook: (1) The 
connection of S (if any) with the Exile Section; (2) The supplements 
of Mt from other sources. 

1. As soon as the Markan origin of Mt 13:53-17:23 is recognized 
the reason for the paucity of Q material in the section becomes ap- 
parent. It is not that Mt has no disposition to supplement from S, 
as he has constantly done before, but that the Exile Section of Mk 
had no representation in S as such. The same is probably true of the 
Perean Section. Hence Mt has nothing to add from S save an oc- 
casional touch which barely suffices to prove that the same incident 
Mk is narrating lay before him in another version and connection. 1 

In my GM (1925, pp. 162 ff .) I have shown that the Exile Section of 
Mk (6 :56-8 :26) is an inferential construction of our second evangelist. 
It is unhistorical, built up theoretically with a doctrinal purpose, 

1 Mt 17:19 f. = 17:6 is such a stray Q logion. It is impossible to determine the 
context to which it belonged in S until we first learn whence Mk derived his anec- 
dote of the Epileptic Boy and why he placed it in 9:14r-29. See BGS ad Hoc. The 
juxtaposition in Lk with Mt 18:21 f. suggests that it stood in this vicinity of S. 

218 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 219 

and largely composed from duplicate material. Because of its un- 
historical character this section of Mk is cancelled by Lk, whose own 
account of the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles in his second 
"treatise" is far more in accord with fact. Mt appears no less con- 
scious than Lk that Jesus always remained a "minister to the cir- 
cumcision, that he might confirm the promises given unto the fathers " 
(Rom. 15:8); but Mt in transcribing Mk refuses to take the drastic 
method of cancellation adopted by Lk. Instead he retains the Exile 
Section, expunging only the few clauses which make it an "exile." 
Thus the central anecdote of the Syrophoenician (Mt "Canaanite"), 
which Lk eliminates together with the context, is retained by Mt 
with the dexterous turn that makes the woman come "out of those 
borders," i.e., Phoenicia, or in Old Testament phrase the "borders of 
Tyre and Sidon." Mk, on the contrary, makes Jesus journey "from 
Tyre through Sidon" back to the Sea of Gennesaret "up the midst of 
the borders of Decapolis." By means of slight changes such as this 
Mt is able to conserve the materials used by Mk in the Exile Section 
without sacrificing his particularistic principle laid down in 10:5f. 
In fact he even takes pains to repeat it in this connection (15:24) 
in order that it may be perfectly clear that the principle is not 
violated, but that the believing suppliant stands in exactly the same 
relation to unbelieving Israel as the Believing Centurion of 8:5-13. 
Of course there could be no objection even from the Synagogue's 
point of view to the welcoming of a humble, believing proselyte. 
The difficulty with the Markan context was that the preliminary 
to Jesus' journey into "the borders of Tyre and Sidon" was a Con- 
flict with the Scribes, in which Jesus abolished the Mosaic distinction 
of clean and unclean meats (Mk 7:1-23). This conflict over cere- 
monial cleanness was the great issue of the apostolic age; not so much 
with any idea of imposing Mosaic ceremonial distinctions on Gentile 
converts an impracticable demand of the Judaizers almost im- 
mediately rejected (Gal. 2:1-10) as because of the difficulties 
created for Jewish converts anxious to conserve their ceremonial 
"cleanness" by the influx of Gentile converts to "eat with" them. 
Mk's Exile Section is concerned with this issue. It is indeed retained 
by Mt also in 15:1-20, but with another of his adroit corrections. 
Jesus in Mt 15:12-14 does not "make all meats clean," as in Mk. 
He merely abolishes the oral law of the scribes and their blind fol- 
lowers the Pharisees. This mishnah ("secondary" law) or Seurepcoo-ts 
of Hillel, as the Nazarenes designate it in Jerome's time, is a "plant- 
ing" (in allusion to the designation "hedge of the Law") of which 
Jesus says (verse 13) "Every planting which my heavenly Father 
planted not, shall be rooted up." The addition 15:12-14, which in- 
cludes the S q logion verse 14 = Lk 6:39, shows clearly that Mt is 



220 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

under no illusions as to the motive of the Exile Section. He only 
intends to neutralize Mk's radicalism so far as the essentials of 
Mosaism are concerned. For Mk is almost contemptuously anti- 
Jewish (Mk 7:3 f.), Mt is only anti-Pharisaic. 

In a later supplement with which we shall have to deal presently 
it will be shown how Mt regards Peter as empowered to settle the 
delicate point of "binding and loosing" about which the controversy 
turned. For the present we merely observe that Mt retains the ma- 
terials of Mk's Exile Section, cancelling only the Healings of the 
Dumb and Blind (Mk 7:31-37 and 8:22-26), though even in this 
case he makes compensations (9:27-34= 12:22-24). His slight devia- 
tions from Mk throughout the section are full of significance in view 
of this intention, but are best followed in the Commentaries, of Allen, 
Plummer, and McNeile. 

To trace out from Mk's composite what he has derived from S 
in this Exile Section is a task belonging primarily to the documentary 
analysis of Mk. In my GM I have pointed to certain evidences in 
Mt 15:29-31 = Mk 7:31 f., 37 and Mt 16:l-4 = Mk 8:11-13 proving 
that Mt is not solely dependent here on Mk, but is acquainted also 
with the Source, which related both the Unstopping of Deaf Ears 
and the Opening of Blind Eyes, mentioning particularly the response 
of the common people to the heaven-sent gospel and its divine at- 
testation in line with the prophecy of Is. 29:9-24. 2 This is not another 
S, but simply S as utilised by Mk. Mt is only plucking a few additional 
fragments not too obviously employed before from the original S. 
The j3 texts which add an independent parallel to Lk 12:54-56 in 
Mt 16:2-3 give further evidence of the survival of the Source inde- 
pendently of Mk, thus confirming our conjecture that in S an Opening 
of Blind Eyes formed part of the narrative which introduced the 
Denunciation of the Evil and Perverse Generation. In Jn 9 -1-10:21 
this exceptional "sign" is made the sole basis of the denunciation 
(9:39-41), though Jn returns to the Blasphemy in 10:19-21. 

There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. 
And many of them said, He hath a demon and is mad; why listen ye to 
him? Others said, These are not the sayings of one possessed with a demon. 
Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? 

The consecutive parallel between the Feeding of the Four Thou- 
sand followed by the Conflict with the Pharisees who demand a sign 
in Mk 8:1-10, 11-13, and the Feeding of the Five Thousand followed 
by the Conflict with the Scribes from Jerusalem in Mk 6:30-56; 
7:1-23, is generally regarded as proof that Mk is here drawing from 

2 Quoted in Mk 7:6 f. = Mt 15:8 f. and turned by the Nazarenes against the 
Synagogue leaders (Jerome, Comm. on 7s., ad loc.). See Appended Note VI. 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 221 

overlapping sources. This is true. But Mk's duplications are not 
fortuitous but made with symbolic purpose. Mt's parallels show 
slightly more of the S basis, which seems to underlie Mk's second 
form (8:1-13), if not both. Unfortunately no certain indication 
remains to show whether the story of the Syrophoenician was drawn 
from this source or some other. The first group comes to a close at 
Mk 7:37 = Mt 15:31 (cf. Is. 29:23) after which Mk (followed by Mt) 
returns to make a new beginning based on his other source. 3 

Mk, as we have seen, takes advantage of this overlapping of his 
sources and of the expression found in one of them "borders of Tyre 
and Sidon" (that is, northern Galilee) to construct an out-and-out 
ministry among Gentiles prefaced by defiant abolition of the Mosaic 
ceremonial distinctions of "clean" and "unclean." Mt is certainly 
aware of the great exaggeration in this representation of Jesus' 
attitude toward the laws of ceremonial purity and toward Gentiles. 
He seems to be more or less suspicious also of the duplications in- 
volved in Mk's story. But he is unwilling to sacrifice so large a body 
of teaching material. The two miracles of healing the deaf-mute and 
the blind man he reluctantly sacrifices, discarding the characteristic 
full Markan development but retaining the substance elsewhere 
(9:27-34; cf. 12:22-24 and 15:30 f.). The remainder he conserves by 
careful adjustment to his own standards in 15:12-14, 21 f., 28 (cf. 
Acts 15:9), 31 (cf. Is. 29:23), 39; 16:6, 12. This carries him over 
the difficult ground of the Exile Section with a minimum sacrifice of 
Markan material. His doctrinal attitude on the cardinal issue, the 
adjustment of Jewish ceremonial purity to an influx of uncircum- 
cised converts, 4 will appear more clearly from another group of diver- 
gences from Mk. 

2. The task imposed on us by the peculiarities of composition of 
Book IV is not adequately met by the mere attempt to trace possible 
elements of S in the P material, nor even by the attempt to determine 
what changes from Mk may be due to Mt's independent acquaintance 
with S. The real problem is to read Mk 6-8 with Mt's eyes, that is, 
to observe what Mt takes to be its pragmatic values. The problem is 
not insoluble, nor are we limited in the attempt to solve it to those 

3 As shown in my GM the overlapping of sources in Mk continues over ch. 10. 
It would be of extreme interest if one of these could be proved the source of the 
Transfiguration vision (Mk 9:2-8=Mt 17:1-8). But as far as indications go it is 
not the source from which Mk draws this Revelation to Peter which stands con- 
nected with Q, but its parallel in Mk 8:27-9:1. 

4 In the period of Mk and Mt the question of Mosaic observance as a require- 
ment had long since sunk out of sight in all Greek-speaking churches. All that 
remained of the controversy was the question of "eating together" in the brother- 
hood repasts (Agapae). Some felt it needful to guard the scruples of the "clean" 
(so Lk), others "made all meats clean" (so Mk and Mt). 



222 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

minute changes carefully noted by all critical commentators of which 
we have given examples above. Fortunately there exist in this fourth 
Book of Mt, devoted to the subject of Church Administration, and 
in no other part of the Gospel, a series of remarkable supplements 
which we designate "Petrine" because all are devoted to the support 
of the unique authority of Peter. This apostle is in fact presented 
successively as (1) first Confessor of the Resurrection Faith (14:28- 
33), (2) as Foundation of the Church and Arbiter of its Rules of 
Conduct (16:17-19), finally (3) as Vicar of Christ in the adjust- 
ment of the Church's relations to Synagogue and Roman State 
(17:24-27). These "Petrine Supplements" have been discussed in 
my article under this title in The Expositor for January, 1917 (Series 
VIII, No. 73, pp. 1-23), and are shown to have a very significant 
and important bearing on Mt's interpretation of the Markan story 
which he transcribes, as well as on the conditions and controversies 
of his time. A glance at their distribution and purport will be 
rewarding. 

If we look at the two Divisions of Book IV, regarding the new 
beginning at 17:22 f.=Mk 9:30-32 as marking the transition from 
Narrative Introduction to the Discourse, it will be apparent that 
Mt looks upon the Feeding of the Five Thousand, prefaced by the 
Rejection in Nazareth, Hostility of Herod and Death of John (13:54- 
58; 14:l-12=Mk 6:1-6, 14-29) and followed by the Conflict with 
the Scribes (15:l-20=Mk 7:1-23) as forming (for teaching purposes) 
a unit. Evidences are ample in all four of the Gospels to prove that 
this story of the first Agape, Jesus' farewell to his following in Galilee, 
was used everywhere as a sort of parallel to the Institution of the 
Eucharist at the final Passover in Jerusalem. To Mt, as to Mk, the 
group surely symbolized the formation of the primitive Brotherhood 
described in Acts 1-5. The scene as depicted in Mk 6:39-43 is un- 
mistakably shaped to conform to the actual practice of the Church 
in these assemblies (often held in the open air) to break bread to- 
gether, and after conclusion of the fraternal meal to "remember the 
Lord's death" in the eucharistic prayers. This is so generally ac- 
knowledged as to need no further comment. 

It is also quite generally recognized that the night of storm on the 
lake which concludes the story, with the miracle of Jesus' coming 
to the despairing company of disciples in the boat, walking on the 
sea and subduing its rage, forms part of the lesson. Symbolic expres- 
sion is thus given to the resurrection story, in which Jesus triumphs 
over the Power of Darkness and restores the broken faith of the 
Twelve. The latest of the symbolic developments of this theme in 
our Gospels, that of Jn 6, is in some respects the most instructive, 
because all disguise of the fact that it is the symbolism of the eucha- 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 223 

ristic supper which is here employed is frankly abandoned, the fourth 
Gospel having no other account of the institution of the Supper. 

The first of the "Petrine supplements" of Mt is attached to the 
climax of Mk's story of the Galilean Eucharist in Mt 14:28-33, and 
shows that our evangelist fully appreciates the symbolism of his pred- 
ecessor. He brings it, however, into much closer parallelism with 
the story [obscured in all our gospel records, and only alluded to by 
Paul (I Cor. 15:5) and twice by Lk (22:31-34 and 24:34)] of Peter's 
part in the restoration of the faith of the Twelve. In reality the 
references just given show that it was just this soul-harrowing ex- 
perience of Peter on which all hinged. Mk 14:27-31 tells (by Jesus' 
prediction) of the scattering of the Twelve and their rallying in 
Galilee. It also tells of Peter's refusal to believe the warning and of 
his volunteering to brave the storm of official hatred and go with 
Jesus "to prison and to death," an offer which Jesus receives only 
with renewed prediction of Peter's humiliating failure. Unquestion- 
ably the original ending of Mk must have told how this failure was 
retrieved. Jesus "appeared to Simon"; and Simon "when he was 
turned again," rallied his brethren (Lk 22:32). This was certainly 
the historic fact which turned the tide of faith for Christianity. But 
it has disappeared from the records, overwhelmed by the floods of 
controversy over the resurrection "body." 

It surely is not valueless to come upon a reflection of this crisis of 
the faith, however symbolic in form, in the first of Mt's "Petrine 
supplements." For such we may esteem the added verses Mt 14:28- 
33 to be. The correspondence of Peter's offer to brave the storm with 
Jesus, his failure at the crucial test, the intervention of Jesus to restore 
his disciple's failing faith, the coming again to the despairing company 
in the boat, their acclamation as they see Jesus again in company 
with Peter, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God" all this parallels 
too closely the facts as known from Paul and Lk not to be, as we 
have said, a reflection in the mirror of early symbolism of that lost 
item, the most important item of all, in the resurrection story, the 
"turning again" of Simon Peter. 

But it is the reason for its introduction here by Mt which is our 
more immediate concern. Clearly Mt's purpose is to recall the su- 
preme service to the Church of the first Witness to the resurrection. 
He takes the whole Markan story of the Feeding of the Five Thou- 
sand, together with its setting, at the same pragmatic valuation as 
all our evangelists. It is to Mt, as to all the rest, a kind of foreshadow- 
ing of the Founding of the Church. The addition which he makes, 
whatever its derivation, 5 aims to give Peter his due in this all-impor- 
tant event. Mt would have it remembered that the Church owed the 

6 The phraseology is (at least in part) Mt's own; cf. d^^irnrre, verse 31. 



224 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

very beginnings of its resurrection faith, under Christ himself, to 
Peter, because he is about to appeal to the authority of Peter for the 
supreme decision of the Church in apostolic days. 

We may pass over the fact that in the paragraph which next fol- 
lows, prefacing the Exile Section of Mk with an account of Conflict 
with the "Pharisees and scribes" on "the tradition of the elders" 
(Mt 15:l-20 = Mk 7:1-23), Mt's corrective addition in verses 12-14 
introduces "Peter" (Mk "his disciples") as recipient of Jesus' ex- 
planation of the disputed saying. This belongs among the slighter 
editorial touches, and we are now concerned with more ample phe- 
nomena. For, while Mt takes over Mk's story of Jesus in "the borders 
of Tyre and Sidon," with the minor changes already touched upon, 
he does not fail to indicate by a second, still more striking "Petrine 
supplement," what he regards as the true application of the section. 

Mt's editorial alterations of Mk 7:1-23, including his corrective 
supplement of verses 12-14, make it clear that he holds that Jesus 
abolished nothing but the "traditions of the elders" in his saying 
about inward purity (15:ll = Mk 7:18 f.), leaving the Mosaic re- 
quirements unchanged. What, then, is the significance of the second 
"Petrine supplement" attached to the closing section of the group 
in 16:17-19? Peter is here exalted as the foundation Rock of the 
Church. But why is Jesus represented as solemnly conferring 
on him the "power of the keys" in the kingdom of heaven, with 
special authorization to "bind and loose"? The authority is that of a 
"Prince," or "President," of the college of scribes to declare a com- 
mandment obligatory or obsolete. 

Previous reference in 5:19 shows that to Mt's mind alteration of 
the Mosaic requirement is among the prerogatives of the Christian 
teacher, however great the conservatism that should be applied. If 
we carefully observe the use Mt makes of Mk's story of the Feeding 
of the Four Thousand in its setting (slightly altered by Mt) good 
reason will appear to maintain that Mt approximates far more 
closely to the radicalism of Mk than we should expect from one 
whose conservatism and Jewish propensities have been made clearly 
evident heretofore. In a word Mt occupies the standpoint of the 
"Petrine" sections of First Acts on the critical issue of "distinctions 
of meats." He does not take the standpoint of Lk, who makes the 
compromise offered by James at the Apostolic Council the basis of 
settlement. 

For, strange as it may seem, the settlement of the issue in the story 
of Peter's admission of Cornelius and his household to baptism in 
Acts 9:32-11:18 is far more sweeping than the "decrees" of the 
Council. For the Apostolic Council of Acts 15 is preceded by an 
Apostolic Conclave of Acts 11:1-18, this earlier conference having 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 225 

been summoned to adjudicate upon the charge against Peter "Thou 
wentest in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with them." Here, 
in I Acts, Peter victoriously takes his stand on the divine disavowal 
of the entire system of Mosaic food-laws. God had showed him by 
special revelation that he "should not call any man common or 
unclean," because "God is no respecter of persons, but in every na- 
tion he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to 
Him." And not only are Gentiles thus freed from any concern about 
foods called "common or unclean" by the Jew, but the Jew himself 
is prepared by divine intervention to accept the hospitality of his 
Gentile fellow-believer without any restriction whatever. The ground 
for this release of the believing Jew from the distinctions of meats 
is specially noteworthy. It consists of a vision and voice from heaven, 
thrice related, the burden of which is that these distinctions of meats 
are not of divine but of human origin. "What God hath cleansed make 
not thou common." Identically this point of view is taken in Mt 
15:13, where the same distinctions of meats are declared to be a 
"planting which my heavenly Father hath not planted," and which 
is destined to be "rooted up." Here as in Acts 10:1-11:18 the aboli- 
tion of the Mosaic distinctions for both Jewish and Gentile believers 
is based on Peter's divinely given authority. But this is by no means 
the standpoint of Lk in Second Acts. In Acts 15, and 21 :20-26, the 
unalterable necessity for Jews "among the Gentiles" of maintaining 
at all costs their ceremonial purity is fundamental. It is this as- 
sumed necessity which alone justifies James in proposing as eTravayKi-s 
that Gentile believers should eliminate the "pollutions of idols" 
from brotherhood meetings as respects four sources of ceremonial 
contamination. 6 James' amendment to Peter's proposal remains the 
final solution for Lk. Antioch yielded to Jerusalem. Mt does not. 

We are left confronting two alternatives: Either (1) Mt and the 
author of the Petrine tradition of Acts 9:32-11:18 allegorize the 
Old Testament, holding that the food-laws were always intended by 
God to be understood in a symbolic sense, the literal sense having 
been wrongly imposed upon them by human jealousy; or (2) they 
hold, each of them, to a doctrine of abolition, the doctrine that be- 
lievers have been authorized by special divine revelation to declare 
the Mosaic distinctions obsolete, so that refusal to eat or associate 
with non-observers is reprehensible. The former is the Alexandrian 
view, adopted in circles of pre-christian Hellenism by Jews such as 
the author of Ps-Aristeas and taken over by Christians such as the 
author of Barnabas and Justin. In fact Barnabas even goes so 

"Fornication," banned by Paul on ethical grounds, was regarded by Jewish 
purists as a source of " uncleanness " not only to the guilty parties, but also to 
those "who eat and associate with them" (Clem. Horn. Ill, 68; cf. I Cor. 5:11). 



226 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

far as to ascribe the Palestinian, or literal, interpretation to the 
malign influence of an "evil angel." The latter or abolition view 
is strictly Pauline, the view represented by Peter at Antioch before 
his yielding to "those from James" 

It is possible, but not probable, that Mt and the Petrine writer 
of Acts 9:32-11:18 held to the Alexandrian view which made the 
literal application of the food-laws a human perversion never intended 
by the divine author. A different view is commended by the sharp 
distinction between human and divine in Acts 10:14 f. and Mt 15:13. 
This makes it probable that the community represented by these 
traditions had never yielded to the pressure from Jerusalem which was 
exerted at Antioch through the delegates "from James" (Gal. 2:11- 
13), a pressure which induced Peter to withdraw from his original 
attitude of freedom and accept the compromise. It appears that 
these "Petrine" circles of I Acts and Mt took the standpoint indicated 
by the utterance of Peter in Acts 15:9, "God, who knoweth the heart, 
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto 
us; and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their 
hearts by faith." We may account for the Jacobean leanings of II 
Acts as we will, it is clear that neither the author of Acts 9:32-11:18 
nor Mt, accepts the standpoint of Lk, that believing Jews are still 
under obligation to maintain their ceremonial purity, and must 
therefore make special provision to avoid contamination when "among 
the Gentiles." The two agree rather with Paul, to whom demands 
made on this ground, even tacitly, are reprehensible; cf. Gal. 2:15 ff. 
with Acts 10: 14 f. 

Historically the "decrees" of Acts 15 represent a futile attempt to 
enforce the Jerusalem compromise, an attempt foredoomed to failure, 
which by 93 A.D., when Rev. 2:14-20 was written, had already broken 
down in all its parts not supported by a real moral distinction, and 
which is visibly passing into the discard even at Antioch in Didache 
vi. 3. Contrariwise Mt and Acts 9:32-11:18 represent the liberal 
Peter before the "hypocrisy" at Antioch, when (to Paul's disgust) 
he yielded to the awe-inspiring delegates "from James" (Gal. 2:12 f.). 
It is interesting to learn from Josephus (Ant. XX, ii.) that the issue 
had already been drawn in pre-Christian times in Adiabene. The Jew 
Ananias, who first converted Izates, king of the country, assured him 
that "the worship of God was of more importance than circumcision," 
and opposed that conformity to Jewish ritual which the king finally 
adopted under pressure from Eleazar, another Jewish propagandist 
of stricter views. 

It is the "Petrine supplement" giving Peter authority to "bind 
and loose" for the Church which most clearly places us at the point of 
view of Mt in this part of the Exile Section, and enables us both to 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 227 

appreciate the sense in which he takes the Markan group and also to 
see the motive of his changes. Mt softens the polemic of Mk against 
the Mosaic distinctions of clean and unclean, but he agrees to Mk's 
rejection of them as an unwarranted barrier to the spread of the gospel 
to believing Gentiles and the mixed "people of the land" (am haaretz) 
of half-heathen Galilee and Decapolis. To Mt the "Canaanite" 
woman is as typical an example of the stranger adopted among the 
people of God as Rahab the Canaanite harlot and Ruth the Moabit- 
ess, whom he specially mentions in his genealogy of Christ. Along 
with the Believing Centurion, she is to Mt the type of many who are 
to come from East and West to "sit down with Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob" at the messianic feast (8:11). 

But the special interest in her case is its (Markan) connection with 
the law of "clean" and "unclean," a law which Jesus elucidates hi 
the preceding paragraph. Like Cornelius in the incident of Acts, 
the "Canaanite" is to Mt the shining example of the "alien" whose 
heart "God hath cleansed by faith" (c/. 5:8 and 15:19 ff., 28). She is 
not to be "called common or unclean." For this reason special stress 
is laid in Mt's version of the story on Jesus' refusal to depart from 
his particularistic rule of action until the vital condition (faith) 
has been unmistakably met. Another divergence in verse 28 defines 
exactly why the departure is allowable. Mt's changes in verses 22-24 
and 28 are intended to meet two possible objections: (1) that Jesus 
had not been insistent enough in admitting none but those fully 
qualified, (2) that the woman's heart had not been unmistakably 
"cleansed by faith." In Mt's form of the story Jesus shows himself 
more sensitive than the Twelve to the limitation of his mission to the 
lost sheep of the house of Israel, but he brings out also more clearly 
the faith condition by adding, after the pattern of 9:22, "0 woman, 
great is thy faith, be it unto thee as thou wilt." 

Mt finds another opportunity to point the intended moral in his 
description of the multitude on the Decapolis side of the Sea of 
Galilee for whose benefit Jesus repeats the miracle of the Loaves. 
This follows in the next verses (Mt 15:29-31 =Mk 7:31-37), including 
special mention of the "blind and deaf-mute," though the specific 
cases of Mk 7:32-36 and 8:22-26 are here cancelled. Mk leaves it 
uncertain whether it is a Gentile multitude which is thus admitted to 
the blessings of the gospel here in heathen territory, or only certain 
wandering sheep of the flock of Abraham. The matter is indifferent to 
his radical anti-Judaism. Mt indicates by the addition from Is. 
29:23 "They glorified the God of Israel" that he has in mind the "little 
ones in the midst " (Is. 29 :23) whose previous connection with the Syn- 
agogue was at least dubious. This Galilean am haaretz are Mt 's equiv- 
alent for those "Jews which are among the Gentiles" for whose fidelity 



228 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

to the Mosaic customs James in Acts 21 :21 shows so much solicitude. 
The redactional addition, accordingly, has the same motive as verse 
28. Jews or Gentiles, these "little ones in the midst" are admitted 
to the fellowship of the (second) agape by virtue of their faith in 
"the God of Israel." 7 

The Markan group closes in Mt 16:5-12 with a transcript of the 
Q logion "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, " Lk 12:1, which Mk 
gave in the form "Leaven of the Pharisees and leaven of Herod" 
(Mk 8:15), perhaps misled by the alliance of Pharisees and Herodians 
under Agrippa I (42 A.D.) for the suppression of the Church. 8 Mt 
changes to "Pharisees and Sadducees," as in 3:7, and explains that 
"leaven" stands for "teaching." The original meaning and connec- 
tion of the logion are obscure. In the connection Mt would seem to 
understand by "leaven" the fellowship of temple and Synagogue, 
which he contrasts with the Christian, the latter being an inward fel- 
lowship of the Spirit. In Q there is reason to believe we should under- 
stand the warning in the light of Acts 15 :5. 9 

Once more in a sort of preface to the Discourse of this fourth Book 
Mt intervenes in 17:24-27 with another "Petrine supplement," 
whose interest again throws light on his understanding of Mk's 
grouping. The matter still concerns church administration, but now 
on its external side, its relation with the Synagogue on the one hand, 
the civil government on the other. 

While the temple still stood brotherhoods of christianized Jews 
expelled from the Synagogue, or only tolerated in its precincts, 
might well be in some perplexity when the collector of the temple 
tax appeared demanding to know whether they counted themselves 
loyal Jews or not. They could avoid "stumbling" their Jewish 
brethren by consenting to bear the burden. On the other hand pay- 
ment only strengthened the hands of their bitterest enemies. More- 
over the issue was not solved but only complicated when, after the 
destruction of the temple, the Roman fiscus took its usual course of 
turning the tax, deprived of its original purpose, into the voracious 
imperial treasury. The tax-gatherer still challenged the Church 
with his annual question "Are you people Jews, or not?" To answer 
"Yes" was onerous and misleading, to answer "No" was to re- 
nounce a loyalty still cherished, if only in a sublimated sense. The 
midrash of the Coin in the Fish's Mouth was probably intended as 

7 In my BGS, pp. 83 and 96 attention is called to Mk's insistence on the different 
numbers 12 and 7 as corresponding to those of the twelve Apostles and seven 
Evangelists of Acts 6-8. It is possible that Mk intends thus to symbolize the two 
groups. 

8 See my article in JBL for Dec., 1920 (XXXIX, 102-120), " Pharisees and He- 
rodians in Mk." 

9 See Appended Note IX. 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 229 

pure haggadic fable when first related to a Christian "synagogue." 
To ears trained in rabbinic methods the question, "Did this actually 
happen? " is in such a case utterly banal. Surely no Jew of the period 
of the Tannaim ever asked the question whether the story of the pearl 
swallowed by the fish which ultimately fell into the hands of the 
deserving rabbi, was "a true story." Only the unpoetical western 
mind refuses to dissociate truth from fact. To the oriental, ancient or 
modern, Jew or Christian, this is easy. Symbolism is to him second 
nature. Hence the grotesqueness of the marvel has little bearing on 
the date, though it is true that the earliest Christian miracle stories 
show a pleasing contrast in this respect with the later apocryphal 
gospels. Also it is fallacious (pace Wellhausen) to argue for an early 
date from the treatment of the temple as still standing. This is 
habitual in both Jewish and Christian writers of post-apostolic 
times. 10 It is the temple-tax with which the haggadist is concerned, 
and that, as we have seen, had by no means fallen into desuetude. 
The story would be just as easy to date under Domitian or Trajan as 
under Claudius or Nero. 

But its interest for us lies in the unique position given to Peter as 
vicar of Christ, standing as his representative to the authorities. 
Only in this fourth Book of Mt on Church Administration does Peter 
occupy any such position of primacy, and this (pace Grill and von 
Soden) has nothing whatever to do with the claims of Rome. For a 
Gospel which contains such directions as Mt 10:23 Rome has not 
even risen above the horizon. No; the "primacy of Peter" is a very 
real thing for Mt, but it is a primacy whose seat is Syrian. Neverthe- 
less it admits no coloration such as Lk's from the primacy of James in 
Jerusalem. It is reflected vividly in the whole group of "Petrine 
supplements," of whose character and probable derivation we have 
now to take account. 

Of the general character of the Petrine Supplements as Jewish 
midrash or haggada there can be no question. Reference has just 
been made to a parallel previously cited in connection with the parable 
of the Costly Pearl, which illustrates the nature of the story of the 
Coin in the Fish's Mouth. The parallel to Mt 16:17-19 adduced by 
Chase (after Schechter) in his article s. v. "Peter, First Epistle" in 
Hastings' DB, Vol. Ill, p. 795, wherein Jesus bestows on Peter his 
title of foundation Rock of the Church, has already been cited (above, 
p. 156). 

In this supplement Peter as the Rock foundation of the Church 
forms an excellent companion piece to Abraham the hero of faith, 
founder of the ancient people of God. The promise that the Gates of 
Sheol shall not prevail against it is perhaps suggested by the deliver- 

10 See, e.g., Clem, ad Cor. xl. 



230 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

ance from the prison-house of Babylon promised to the captive seed of 
Abraham in Is. 45:2. At all events it alludes to the hope of resurrec- 
tion first kindled by Peter's faith, which the Church looks forward 
to as a deliverance from Satanic bondage (cf. Rev. 1:18). But this 
addition to Mk's story of the Confession of Peter (Mk 8:29) betrays 
just the same late and midrashic character as its companion supple- 
ments. Moreover it can hardly be of Mt's own composition, for the 
inconsistency of the authority to "bind and loose" committed to 
Peter individually with that committed to the Church collectively in 
18:18 is hardly less difficult to adjust than the inconsistency of Mt 
10:5 f. with 28:19. As between the two commissions it could only be 
the rule of 18:18 which would survive to become the practice of the 
Church. Consequently we must regard 16:19 as encysted.. And if 
we ask, Whence has Mt these rabbinic supplements? we can but point 
to the character of N as repeatedly defined. They are, as Streeter 
rightly points out, parasitic growths, whose relation to the main stock 
of gospel tradition (the Petrine of Mk) is that of the mistletoe to the 
oak. Their closest analogue is found in the edifying tales by which 
the targumists of the Synagogue interlard their renderings from the 
Hebrew Scriptures. We may look for their nearest affinities hi the 
written targums of the Gospels in Aramaic, such as Ev. Naz. later 
came to be. 

Division B 

It has been shown in my GM (pp. 144 f .) that the discourse of Mk 
9:33-50 is made up from two factors. In line with the course of the 
story, which places at this point the "leaving all" in Galilee to follow 
Jesus on the road to Calvary, we have 

(1) A theme continuing that of the teaching at Caesarea Philippi, where 
Jesus reveals the doctrine of the cross (8:31-38), a theme continued in the 
series of anecdotes in 10:17-45, all of which relate to Renunciation and 
Reward. The burden of the group is: Leave all for the kingdom's sake. 
"He that would save his life shall lose it, but he that is ready to lose it 
for the kingdom's sake shall save it." This note of heroism and martyrdom 
pervades the major part of the material in Mk 9:30-10:45, including the 
eloquent paragraph (poetic in form as well as substance, and saturated 
with Isaian phraseology) on Sacrificing All, 9:43-48. As is well known, 
most of this paragraph appears twice in Mt (Mt 5:29 f. = 18:8 f.). (2) 
Intermingled in strange combination with this primary theme appears a 
second theme on Receiving vs. Stumbling, a series of logia partly recurrent 
in Q (principally in the Lukan form) inculcating the duty of consideration 
for the weak. It is this second theme which is superimposed, and dominates 
the construction, in spite of its smaller bulk and looser relation to the story 
as a whole. For the introductory incident is the Dispute as to Who should 
be Greatest (verses 33-35); and although this seems to be only a briefer 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 231 

version of 10:13-16, 35-45 it has doubtless been inserted at this point by 
the compiler of the Gospel for the sake of introducing the discourse in its 
present form. The theme of Receiving vs. Stumbling is continued by the 
Rebuke of Intolerance (verses 38-40) interjected between the two parts 
of the Q logion on Reward for Kindness to Christ's Messengers (Mk 9:37b, 
41=Mt 18:5 f. = Lk 10:40), and a briefer adaptation of another Q logion 
on Stumbling the Weak (Lk 17:1 f . =Mt 18:6 f.). The series ends with two 
Q logia on Saving Salt, attached in strange fashion at the close of the ag- 
glutination in a manner to bring attention back to the point of departure, 
viz., the Quarrel as to Who shall be Greatest (Mk 9:49 f.; cf. Lk 14:34 f. = 
Mt5:13). 

It is the second of the two interwoven themes of Mk which Mt has 
developed in expanding the discourse. His additions are chiefly from 
S q , the most important being a group found together in Lk 17:1-4 
but distributed by Mt according to his usual practice in 18:6 f., 15, 
and 21 f. The subject is determined by Mk 9:42-48, of which verse 
42 rests on the same S logion, a warning against Stumbling the Weak, 
curiously joined by Mk to another logion related to it merely, it 
would seem, ad vocem, on members which cause "stumbling" (crKavda- 
Xifew). Mt retains this sequel in spite of having already employed the 
logion in a different sense in 5:29 f. 11 His additions, whether from 
Q or P, are made with very slight exceptions 12 for the purpose of 
developing what we have shown to be Mk's secondary theme, one 
which bears a very close relation to Paul's plea for unity and tolera- 
tion in Rom. 14:1-15:7 and in which the key phrases are "receiving" 
and "stumbling." 

It is impossible to do justice to the noble development Mt has made 
of this theme in his Discourse on Church Administration, the cul- 
mination of his fourth Book, without some realization of the crucial 
problem of Church Unity to which Paul sacrificed his liberty and ul- 

11 The third metaphor, the offending "foot," is omitted, doubtless because Mt 
found it hard to conceive of an offending foot, paralleling the sense given to the 
offending (lustful) eye and the offending (itching) palm. 

12 On the Q insertion in Mt 18:3 f. see my GM, p. 144. Mk uses twice the in- 
cident of the Child in the Midst. In 9:33-37 it points the moral "Receive the 
little ones and forbid them not" (verse 37), an application suited only to the cir- 
cumstances of 10:13-16, where the disciples have actually shown the "forbidding" 
temper. In 10:13-16 the same incident points the moral "Receive the kingdom 
as little children receive the supply of their needs from their parents, " that is, 
trustfully, as a matter of love, not of merit. As in 12:25-37 Mt blends S<i and 
Mk, restoring in verses 3 f . the lesson of trustful dependence on divine grace. In 
verse 5 he returns to the Markan theme "Receive the little ones," but omits the 
incident of the Alien Exorcist, Mk 9:38 f., because contrary to his principle ex- 
pressed in 7:15-23. Mk 9:37b and 40 f. are transferred to a different context. The 
confusion between the two themes, "Receive the Little Ones" and "Receive the 
Kingdom as Little Ones" is certainly due to Mk's adaptation of the incident of 
10:13-16 to the lesson of his discourse on Receiving vs. Stumbling. 



232 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

timately his life, and to the solution of which he bequeathed his inter- 
pretation of the principles of Jesus. Successively in S, in Mk, in Mt 
and in Jn we find our evangelists grouping together logia of Jesus 
having a bearing on this vital issue of their time; for while the pro- 
foundly Christian teaching of Paul regarding the question of "receiv- 
ing" the weak and avoiding "stumbling," carried to the summit of 
effectiveness by his martyr journey to Jerusalem to heal the threat- 
ened disruption of the Church, had won the first battle of his great 
warfare for peace, the danger of schism was by no means overcome. 
The Jerusalem compromise advocated by Lk was short-lived. In 
90-100 and down to Justin's time there were still considerable bodies 
of Jewish Christians in southern Syria who refused table fellowship 
to other Christians not observant like themselves of the Mosaic 
distinctions of meats. For those who, like the Nazarenes of northern 
Syria, approved the universalism of Paul, repudiating the food laws 
of Pharisaism as a "planting which the heavenly Father had not 
planted, " it was a matter of vital concern to maintain that singleness 
of purpose which on the one side counts no sacrifice too costly for the 
kingdom's sake, and on the other is tolerant of everything except 
disloyalty in the brother for whom Christ died. 

It is this problem of unity in the brotherhood which constituted in 
Paul's time and for more than a generation later the chief anxiety 
of the church administrator. For its solution in the spirit of Jesus 
it was necessary to insist on both poles of Pauline principle, unity 
of the Spirit, liberty of practice. The effort was to bring to the sup- 
port of these principles transmitted "sayings of the Lord" calling 
for unreserved devotion in the essentials and equally for broadest 
toleration in non-essentials. It is not mere assonance but the blend- 
ing of these two principles in such sayings as "If thy hand or foot 
cause thee to stumble, cut it off and cast it from thee" and "Who- 
soever shall cause one of these little ones to stumble it were better 
for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were 
cast into the sea" which has caused the intertwining in Mk and Mt 
of logia bearing on both aspects of the problem. 

The Markan discourse begins with a lesson to church leaders on the 
spirit of Christian rulership which anticipates that of the next chap- 
ter (9:35 = 10:43 f.). It gives us in the words of Jesus an equivalent 
for Paul's first counsel to those who are "spiritual" (Gal. 6:1). By 
adding verse 37 Mk gives it special application to the question of 
"receiving." As we have seen Mt also makes this the beginning of 
his Discourse, only restoring it by additions from S q to a more nearly 
authentic form (Mk 9:33-37 = Mt 18:1-5). 

The second paragraph of Mk's agglutination further inculcated 
the lesson of "receiving" those who preach a different gospel (Mk 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 233 

9:38-42), combining logia probably derived from S, but of uncertain 
context. Here Mt refuses to follow for the reason stated above. 
He cannot tolerate those who exorcise and do mighty works in the 
name of Christ, but are "workers of lawlessness" (7:22 f.). Lk 
adds a further incident (from L?) in which the spirit of intolerance 
manifested toward a Samaritan village by James and John is again 
rebuked by Jesus (Lk 9:51-56). 

The last verse of the Markan group (9:42) is from S. This appears 
by Mt's addition to it of the S q verse 18:7 = Lk 17:1 f. Clement of 
Rome may be using a pre-canonical source in citing this saying in 
his ad Cor. xlvi. 7 f , or he may be only quoting freely from memory. 
At all events he reflects the true meaning of the expression "little 
one" by rendering it "my elect." The "little ones" whose leading 
astray kindles the indignation of Jesus are not literal children, but 
the weak and ignorant or otherwise defenseless. The same applies 
also to verse 10 (P mt ), where the declaration that "their angels do 
always behold the face of my Father in heaven" is equivalent to 
saying "They may be friendless on earth, but just for this reason 
wrongs done to them are more immediately brought to the hearing 
of the heavenly Judge" (cf. Jas. 5:4). Access to the "face" or "pres- 
ence " of God is granted at once to the advocates of those who have 
no earthly helper. Because of the close affinity of verse 10 with verses 
6 f . it is tempting to ascribe it to S, accounting for its omission from 
Lk by the difficulty of making it intelligible to Gentile ears. 

With or without this P supplement the S logia of the Markan group 
have a clearly defined common theme closely akin to the general 
teaching of the paragraph, viz., "receiving" the weak. Like Paul in 
Rom. 14:1-3, 13-15, Mk is pleading for toleration, particularly re- 
garding "distinctions of meats" and things regarded as "unclean." 
The logia and incidents are chosen with special reference to the ques- 
tions brought forward from the beginning of the Exile Section. 
Readers are to take earnest heed not to "forbid" (/ccoAueu/) the 
otherwise minded and the little ones, and not to "cast a stumbling 
block in a brother's way." Some critics refuse to see direct Pauline 
influence in this theme of Mk 9 :30-42 superimposed upon that of the 
context. The coincidence of the teaching, including even the phrase- 
ology, can then only be accounted for by the falling back of both 
Paul and Mk on the same utterances of Jesus. In reality the logia 
are drawn by Mk himself from S, but the grouping is Mk's, and can- 
not be adequately dealt with apart from the structure of his whole 
Exile Section. 

The third and final paragraph of Mk's discourse on church admin- 
istration introduces an almost opposite sense of the term to "stum- 
ble." The warning to count no sacrifice too great which secures 



234 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

entrance into the kingdom of God attached in Mk 9:43-48 uses the 
figure of the eye, hand, or foot "causing to stumble," and might 
seem to be attached at this point merely ad vocem. Its true connection 
must necessarily be with the group of which a trace remains in the 
logion on Tasteless Salt in verse 50; for the fuller, Lukan form (Lk 
14:25-35) immediately precedes the parable of the Lost Sheep (Lk 
15:1-7), which Mt introduces here in 18:12-14. The warning stands 
in line with those following the prediction of the cross at Caesarea 
Philippi, which are repeated in the sayings on leaving all of Mk 10. 
Renunciation is therefore the theme which represents the main stream 
of the narrative upon which the preceding logia on Receiving vs. 
Stumbling have been superimposed. 

The form of the logion is unique in Mk showing the triadic sym- 
metry observable in S q but if derived by Mk from S we have no 
means of determining its original context beyond its logical affinity 
with the Q saying on Tasteless Salt (Mt 5:13 = Lk 14:25-35); for 
Mk seems to derive the warning on Readiness for the Cross from a 
kindred context (Mk 8:34 = Mt 16:24=Lk 9:23). The Lukan con- 
nection makes it probable that the warning was to the individual, 
urging such unqualified devotion as is ready for any and every re- 
nunciation. Mk, in making it the nucleus for his discourse on Receiv- 
ing vs. Stumbling may have given it a corporate application, off- 
setting his plea for toleration in non-essentials by a complementary 
demand for exclusion of all members (of the brotherhood) not thor- 
oughly "salted." At least Mt makes no mistake in taking the entire 
group Mk 9:33-50 as the basis for his Discourse on Unity in the 
Brotherhood. 

It is at the end of Mk's agglutination that Mt appends his principal 
supplements covering the remaining twenty-six verses of his Dis- 
course. Their nature is self-explanatory, having to do with the 
duties of church administration with special emphasis on the recovery 
of wandering members of the flock, conciliation of disputes, and the 
exercise of that spirit of forgiveness toward brethren which is ex- 
tended to all by the Father in heaven. Of the parable of the Lost 
Sheep (verses 12-14 =Lk 15:1-7) we have already spoken. The 
paragraph on Conciliation of Brethren (verses 15-22) expands the 
Q logion of Lk 17 :3 f . by inserting from oral tradition a rule of church 
procedure (verses 15-17), a parallel to the Petrine Supplement on 
Binding and Loosing (verse 18 = 16:19), and a logion on the Hearing 
of United Prayer (verses 19 f.). The closing parable of the Unforgiv- 
ing Debtor (verses 23-35) may probably be referred to R personally 
for reasons already explained. 

It is interesting to observe that the Ev. Naz. contained the Q 
logion 18:21 f. = Lk 17:3 f. with an addition referring to Is. 6:5-7 as 



THE FOURTH BOOK OF MT 235 

proof that "matter (\6yos, sermo, = ddbar) of sin was found even 
in the prophets after their anointing with the Holy Spirit." We also 
note the parallels to the third logion cited by McNeile from Pirge 
Aboth, iii. 3, 9 and Grenfell-Hunt, Oxyr. Pap. i. 9. The saying has 
manifest relation to the rabbinic encouragement to Torah study: 
"Two that are sitting and occupied with the words of Torah, the 
Shekina is among them." Cf. 28:20 and Jn 14:13-17, and see Ap- 
pended Note VII. 

Thus the closing Discourse of Mt's fourth Book proves itself, like 
the two preceding, an expansion of Mk's of similar purport. Mt's 
additions and corrections, however, by their considerable employment 
of S q prove that Mk was not the first to form agglutinations for 
similar purposes. In Lk 14:25-15:10 we have the fullest representa- 
tion of a group, perhaps from L, which reveals the mind of Christ 
as respects the true basis of fellowship in the brotherhood, a devotion 
to the common cause as unsparing as his own. In the secondary 
group which Mk has interwoven with this as a fitting conclusion to 
his Exile Section we have another group centering upon the Q saying 
on Stumbling the Weak (Mt 18:6 f., 15, 21 f. = Lk 17:1-1). Authentic 
logia are quoted on the matter of intolerance and Pharisaic exclu- 
siveness. There is some reason to believe this utterance stood con- 
nected in S with the saying "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" 
(Mk 8:14 ff. = Mt 16:5 ff. = Lk 12:1). At least we may regard Acts 
15 :5 as revealing the real danger of Pharisaism to which the Church 
was exposed, and which Mk in his Exile Section and Mt in Book IV 
have endeavored in divergent ways to meet. 



CHAPTER XVI 
THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 

As in Book IV, and for similar reasons, Mt relies almost exclusively 
on Mk for his introductory narrative (Division A). On the other 
hand Mk is again duplicate, giving ground for the belief that his 
geographical setting for a Perean ministry, like that constructed for 
his Exile Section, had no foundation in S. So far as Q parallels are 
traceable they show connection with themes which in L 'appear as 
part of the farewell teachings at the final Supper of the New Covenant, 
allowing the surmise that such thread of narrative as S admitted led 
directly from the scenes of withdrawal from Galilee to those of the 
final tragedy in Jerusalem. As pointed out above (p. 116) the Markan 
setting of the Quarrel for Precedence, which S q (Mt 19:28 = Lk 22:29) 
makes one of the scenes of the parting Supper, is so superior on 
psychological grounds that the inference of better Petrine tradition 
for Mk's narrative is surely warranted. 

We cannot argue from this, however, an earlier date for Mk, or 
even independence of S, because S follows not a biographic but a 
gnomic method of construction, grouping incidents and sayings 
according to their pragmatic values. Tradition tells us indeed that 
the anecdotes of Mk were also lacking in proper biographic order, 
and this criticism offered by "the Elder" is fully borne out by the 
internal evidence. Nevertheless some attempt at biographic sequence 
is certainly made in Mk, and unless all value whatever is refused to 
the tradition of Petrine connections for this Gospel it must be ex- 
pected that its order will frequently prove more historical than that 
of S. In reality not a few instances can be cited of such superiority 
of historical connection in Mk, nor is there any disposition on the 
part of critics to underrate the value of Mk's Petrine connections. 
We may therefore accept without hesitation the authenticity of the 
Q saying on Thrones in the New Jerusalem (Mt 19:28 = Lk 22:29) 
and the internal evidences of Lk 22:24-30 which indicate the Cove- 
nant Supper as the scene to which it was assigned in S, without 
abandoning our belief that the Markan setting is the more historical 
for the Quarrel as to Rank which in Lk 22 :24-27 is made to precede it. 

Critics are more likely to go astray in ascribing too great value to 
the historicity of Mk. His outline is indeed our best. At the high 
points of the drama, the beginning and end of the Galilean ministry, 
the new departure at Caesarea Philippi, the appeal to all Israel by 

236 



THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 237 

the purging of the temple at Jerusalem followed by the tragedy of 
Golgotha, it furnishes our one sure thread of Petrine connection. 
On the other hand the effort of Mk to furnish a historical outline is 
subordinate to considerations of practical edification and anti-Jewish 
apologetic, while in the body of material employed by him this pre- 
dominance of the religious over the historical motive is still more 
marked. The grouping of anecdotes and the centering of each upon 
some logion of didactic value go to show that the stuff of which Mk 
was compounded is in fact what Papias' tradition declares, pulpit 
anecdotes (haggada) linked together for homiletic purposes. 

We have found a striking example of Mk's effort to turn "sayings 
and doings" into biography (but biography still strongly influenced 
by religious and apologetic motives) in the Exile Section, a group 
which Mt adopts as the narrative foundation for his fourth Book. 
This section is intentionally cancelled by Lk and seems to owe its 
origin in Mk to a combination of two sources for a doctrinal purpose, 
much as Lk combines a Markan and an S q Mission of the Disciples 
to make two Sendings, one of the Twelve, to Israel, the other of the 
Seventy, whose number suggests the traditional number of the na- 
tions of the world. Using two variants of the story of the Breaking 
of the Bread to the Multitude as nuclei Mk fills out the blank of the 
unknown period following Jesus' withdrawal from Galilee by a group 
of anecdotes, largely duplicates, applicable to the great issue of the 
apostolic age, the breaking down of the barrier of Mosaic particular- 
ism by abolition of the "distinctions of meats." He is followed in 
this by Mt (against Lk) ; for Mt moderates and corrects Mk's drastic 
anti-Judaism, but asserts more vigorously than Lk the principle of 
Pauline universalism on the basis of an authority committed to 
Peter. 

It may well be doubted whether Mk has appreciably more in the 
way of reliable historic tradition on which to build his account of a 
Perean ministry than for his Exile Section. It is true that in this 
case Lk as well as Mt has followed suit. But Lk's Perean ministry is 
notoriously artificial, a mere jumble of stories, sayings and parables 
assembled under the theoretic framework of a journey whose stages 
are utterly without connection. The fourth Gospel knows only of a 
retirement from Jerusalem at Tabernacles to "Bethany beyond 
Jordan," the scene of the Baptist's earlier ministry, followed by resi- 
dence until the fatal Passover at "a city called Ephraim" in central 
Samaria. According to Lk 9:51-56 and 17:11 the journey to Jeru- 
salem was "along the borders of Galilee and Samaria" or "between 
Galilee and Samaria," and even the expression of Mk 10:1 "He 
cometh into the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan" involves 
difficulties which must be left to the commentators to decide. Geo- 



238 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

graphically this Markan journey presents problems no less perplex- 
ing than its predecessor to "the borders of Tyre and Sidon." 

The material by which Mk has filled in this uncertain outline is 
equally suggestive of lack of information. There was of course the 
fact implied by the point of departure, a secret rally of Jesus' follow- 
ing in the neighborhood of Capernaum (Mk 9:30-33=Mt 17:22 f. 
reading o-uarpe^o/zei/wi/) and the point of arrival, "Jericho," whence 
the ascent to Jerusalem begins. Otherwise it would seem that 
Jesus' whereabouts during the interval between his withdrawal 
from Galilee and the awaited Passover at Jerusalem were almost 
unknown. He was "on the borders" of Galilee where he could keep 
in touch with his Galilean following. He could also be traced some- 
where along the Jordan valley route for pilgrims to the Passover, 
perhaps on both the east and west bank, but outside the jurisdiction 
of Antipas. Such material as Mk assigns to this period has no rela- 
tion to conditions of time and place, but exhibits the closest rela- 
tion to the evangelist's didactic purpose. It gives evidence of being 
borrowed in Mk, but whether from S, and if so hi what connection, 
remains to be determined. 

In my GM (p. 166 f .) it has been shown that Mk 10 continues the 
basic theme of 9:30-50 on Leaving All, repeating the incident of the 
Child in the Midst in a new application, and leading over to the 
theme of Rank and Reward in the Kingdom, a theme which appears 
in Q as part of the teaching at the Farewell Supper. Some of Mk's 
material, therefore, appeared in S, though in different setting. It 
was also noted in my BG that there are no stories of healings in the 
Perean Section save the two which frame it in, (1) the Healing of the 
Epileptic Boy (Mk 9:14-29), which Mk converts by touches in 
verses 17 and 25 into an Exorcism of a Dumb Demon, and which is 
clearly misplaced; (2) the Opening of Blind Eyes at Jericho (10:46- 
52). The development and placing (or misplacing) of this pair of heal- 
ings correspond so closely to the development and placing of the 
pair of similar healings in the Exile Section (7:31-37 and 8:22-26) 
that the critic can but suspect that the location is due to Mk's desire 
to form an appropriate setting for the borrowed teaching material. 

As regards his teaching motive Mk leaves small room for misap- 
prehension. The basic theme is still, as above stated, Leaving All. 
It culminates in the answer of Jesus to the Ambitious Request of 
James and John in which he rebukes the spirit of self-seeking. This 
spirit is illustrated in the external and worldly conception of the 
kingdom still exhibited by the Twelve and rebuked by Jesus' own 
example of service and self-devotion (Mk 10:17-45). Such is the 
basic theme, which we have found paralleled in Q (Lk 22:24-30). 
But alongside of this, or perhaps we might say, superimposed upon it, 



THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 239 

is a secondary motive of Mk's own, an anti-Jewish apologetic ob- 
servable no less in the grouping than in the framework of symbolic 
healings, and most of all in the three editorial insertions at 8:31 f., 
9:30-32, and 10:32-34. To Mk the Perean Section is an opportunity 
for showing how Jesus persistently rebuked and struggled against an 
unworthy, external conception of the kingdom and its rewards, a 
conception which Mk imputes to Judaism. In the mouth of blind 
Bartimaeus it is "the kingdom of our father David," in the minds of 
the Twelve it is a dumbness and blindness which still clings to them 
as an evil inheritance from their Jewish upbringing. It is the tempta- 
tion of Satan (8:31-33; cf. 9:17 f., 22) which Jesus must uproot to 
inculcate the doctrine of the Cross. 

The group of anecdotes affecting family relations in Mk 10:1-45 
may well owe its original formation to that disruption of family 
ties which bulked so large among the trials of the apostolic Church 
(I Cor. 6), but Mk's grouping seems rather to reflect his anti- Jewish 
apologetic. "Pharisees" disputing about the Law of Divorce may 
seem as much out of place in "the borders of Judea beyond the Jor- 
dan" (10:1 f.) as "scribes" questioning with the disciples in the region 
of Caesarea Philippi (9:14 ff.); but that is nothing to the point for 
Mk. The Pharisees and their question about the Law are wanted to 
head the chapter because the series of anecdotes aims to set in con- 
trast the religion of Law and the religion of Grace. In the law of the 
family the Pharisees look upon the precept of Moses as ultimate; Jesus 
finds a deeper principle in the instinct of monogamy implanted by 
the Creator. The logion also appears in Q (Mt 5:31 f. = Lk 16:18). 
Again the Pharisees are ever seeking new precepts to obey, aiming 
thus to accumulate the needful merit by which to secure the "eternal 
life" of the kingdom. The followers of Jesus look for eternal Me as a 
gift from the Father in heaven, as children expect good gifts from 
parents, regardless of merit, conscious of ill desert, but in the humility 
of trust to the One who alone is "good." Mk has this comparison in 
two forms (Mk 9:36 f. = 10:13-16). 

Nevertheless this loyalty of faith does not fall behind in good 
works. On the contrary it leads to a surrender of all to follow Jesus 
on his way to the Cross. The disciples themselves are still imbued 
with the Pharisaic notion that the rewards of the kingdom are 
achieved by merit. But not even leaving all to follow Christ gives 
title to "treasure in heaven." Peter is rebuked for so interpreting 
the promise in verses 23-31. The rule is simply Life through Death, 
not as in the scale of Pharisaism, so much for so much, but as in the 
spirit of the Crucified, sharing without limit in the present brother- 
hood of love, and hereafter in the life of the Infinite Giver. 

Martyrdom itself entitles to no more. One may drink the cup of 



240 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the Son of Man by a partnership of his sufferings, assured indeed that 
those who thus share in his tribulations shall eat and drink with him 
at his table in his kingdom, but with no guarantee of prerogative. 
To sit on his right hand and his left in his glory is not his to give. 
It is for them for whom it is prepared. 

Such is the pragmatic grouping of Mk 10:1^45, successive forms of 
contrast between the religion of Law and the religion of Grace; the 
religion of merit, won by obedience to written precept, and the reli- 
gion of humble faith. The group constitutes Mk's Peraean Section 
and is bracketed between healings (symbolically applied) of the 
Exorcism of the Demon of Dumbness and the Opening of Blind Eyes. 
It is interlarded with repeated descriptions of the disciples' slowness 
to accept the doctrine of the Cross. The sequence is obviously more 
apt to have been dictated by pragmatic interest than historical 
information. At several points we seem to hear an echo of S, as 
where Mk 10:21 uses the phraseology of Mt 6:19 f. = Lk 12:33; but 
while Mk's material is here certainly borrowed, conjecture as to its 
source and original context would be out of place. 

Our present problem is to read the group of anecdotes of Mk 10 
with the eyes of Mt, a later compiler acquainted with S from which 
Mk had drawn, noting his changes and supplements, partly due to a 
somewhat different standpoint and environment, partly to his in- 
dependent knowledge of the sources. 

As respects change in point of view we have taken note in Chapter 
VI of Mt's alterations in the story of the Rich Enquirer, and have 
noted how the same story evoked further change and additions in 
Nazarene targuming with incapacity not unlike Mt's for grasping 
the real point of Mk's contrast. Mt's touches of the pen to remove 
deprecation on Jesus' part of the application to himself of the title 
"good," and to exonerate James and John from the charge of self- 
seeking at the expense of their mother, are familiar proofs of de- 
pendence on the side of Mt, but are of slight significance as compared 
with the change made in Jesus' answer to the question "What good 
thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? " Mt 's answer to this 
question differentiates his whole Gospel from Mk's. It is the answer 
of the neo-legalist: Keep the commandments of Moses, add to them 
the new commandment of Christ, and the life asked will be granted. 
This is complete neo-legalism. The requirement of unreserved sur- 
render is to Mt a counsel of perfection. But Mk 10:21 preaches the 
gospel of the Q discourse on Abiding Wealth (Mt 6:19 f. = Lk 12:33) 
as required of all; Mt 's " if thou wouldest be perfect " removes it to the 
sphere of a special class. 

A P supplement attached by Mt to the Question of Divorce in 
verses 10-12 shows the same double standard. From its affinity with 



THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 241 

the theme Leaving All one might be inclined to believe that Mt 
draws the saying on Eunuchs for the Kingdom's Sake from S. In 
that case its application was probably unlimited. The renunciation 
of home and family is at least part of the surrender contemplated in 
verses 27-29. Omission by Lk would be quite intelligible, but no 
decisive ground appears for ascribing the logion to S. 

It is otherwise with verse 28, as already observed. The phraseology 
is wholly Mt's ("in the regeneration," "Son of Man sitting on the 
throne of glory"), but the promise is identical with that of Lk 22:28- 
30, and is indissolubly linked by its terminology (5tcm0ejuai) with the 
"covenant" Supper. Jesus employs the figure of the "thrones of the 
house of David" in Ps. 122:5 in his assurance to those who have "en- 
dured with him in his trials" that they shall also share with him in 
the glory of the New Jerusalem. The promise is authenticated by the 
"faithful saying" of II Tim 2:11 f. In this latter passage essentially 
the same promise is embodied in a eucharistic hymn. 

McNeile justly remarks that "The following parable (20:1-16, 
P mt ) has no bearing on the meaning (of the promise); the words 
'first' and 'last' which led Mt to place it here, have a different force." 
In Chapter IX reasons have been given for ascribing the parable to S. 
Certainly its true application allies it with the Markan group to which 
Mt attaches it contrasting the religion of Law with the religion of 
Grace, but to what context of S this group belonged (if it be indeed 
drawn by Mk from S) one can only conjecture. 

Western texts of Mt add after 20:28 "But do ye seek to increase 
from that which is little and to become less from that which is greater 
(c/. Jas. 1:9 f.), and follow up this supplement with an independent 
parallel to Lk 14:8-10. In meaning the addition stands closely in 
line with the context. Its source is not Lk, which uses other language. 
As in 16 :2 f . the critic is left wondering whence the material was ob- 
tained. Uncanonical gospels were still in circulation in 100-150 A.D. 
from which such supplements could be derived. Did they find it in 
Ev. Hebr.? Had it been in Ev. Naz. we might expect to find traces of 
it in the Zion variants. 

Such is the scanty series of additions attached by Mt to Mk's 
narrative in the Perean Section. Its few Q logia do not suffice to 
indicate any parallel section in S. Even if we add Professor Easton 's 
strong evidences (Comm. on Lk, p. 275) for a non-Markan source in 
the third prediction of the Passion (Mk 10:32-34 = Mt 20:17-19=Lk 
18:31-34) no more can be inferred than that S (or L) had material 
leading over from the assumption of messiahship after the with- 
drawal from Galilee to the Appeal to Jerusalem. It is only with the 
Entry into the Temple that we come again upon a possible trace of 
S q in its original context. 



242 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Mt adds at the end of Mk's description of the Triumphal Entry 
(Mk ll:l-ll=Mt 21:1-9) an account of Jesus' welcome in the 
temple, healing of the blind and lame, and approval of the children's 
acclamation; and this description seems to be independent of the 
Markan account of the driving out of the money-changers and 
traders. At least verses 12 f., which describe this in the language of 
Mk 11:15-19, appear to be merely interjected from Mk after Mt's 
manner, while the remainder of the paragraph 21:10-17 tells quite 
a different story. We might regard this paragraph as merely one 
more of Mt's occasional embellishments of Markan narrative, espe- 
cially as it serves to introduce one of his cherished Scripture fulfil- 
ments, but for the fact that Lk 19:39 f. also introduces at nearly the 
same point 1 a corresponding demand on the part of the Pharisees 
that Jesus rebuke the acclamation of his following, a demand which 
receives from him the answer, "If these were silent the stones would 
cry out." The language of the two reports differs widely, and the 
Lukan sequel describing Jesus' tears over the doomed city (Lk 19:41- 
44) has no parallel in Mt. But the coincidence of the Acclamation 
which Jesus refuses to rebuke is difficult to account for if there were 
no basis of common tradition. If this tradition be that of S this 
source contained an account of Jesus' reception at Jerusalem by 
acclaiming crowds after having healed "blind" and lame, an account 
which has been differently developed in L and in Mt's supplement. 
According to Mt 21:17 and Lk 21:37 Jesus "bivouacked" (rjv\i<r8ri) 
with the Twelve near Bethany on the Mount of Olives. As McNeile 
observes, auXtfeo-flai does not "necessarily" mean that the night 
was spent in the open air, but the coincidence of Mt and Lk in the 
expression is a factor to be weighed in considering the question of a 
common source. 

We have seen reason to believe that the closing discourse of S 
resembled in some respects the Farewell discourse of the fourth Gos- 
pel, and that its thread of connecting narrative passed almost with- 
out interruption from Galilee to the final tragedy in Jerusalem, having 
no Exile Section or Perean Section as such, though Mk may derive 
much of the material he has embodied in these sections from S dis- 
courses whose particular location in S we cannot trace. The salient 
points of Mk's outline for this period are the Purging of the Temple, 
and the Challenge from the Sanhedrin, with Jesus' reply showing 
his authority to be "from heaven" and their control a usurpation. 
The material by which Mk fills up the intervals before and after the 
Challenge of the Sanhedrin is incidental. It consists of the Withering 
of the Figtree with its attached group of stray logia (Mk 11:20-25) 

1 Not quite the same. Mt 21 :15-17 should follow verse 9. Verse 14 is an edi- 
torial link. 



THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 243 

and a group of Debates in the Temple with Pharisees, Sadducees, 
and Scribes. This leads over, past the parenthetic incident of the 
Widow's Mites, to the Warning against the Scribes and Doom-chap- 
ter. Nothing of this can be said to have necessary connection with the 
central drama. It is interesting, however, to observe that just the 
two scenes which are indispensable to it, the Encounter with "chief 
Priests and Scribes" in the temple and the Challenge from the San- 
hedrin with Jesus' answer, do have Q parallels. The first of these, 
Jesus' Refusal to rebuke Acclamation (Mt 21:10 f., 14-17 =Lk 
19:39 f.) we have already considered. The second is the Answer to 
the Challenge from the Sanhedrin. This is extended by Mt to include 
the parable of the Penitent Younger Son, a supplement whose closing 
verse consists of admitted Q material (Mt 21 :32 = Lk 7:29 f.). 

Is it reasonable to suppose that in this case Mt is reproducing S 
in its true connection? If so, the Markan allegory of the Usurping 
Husbandmen which closes the scene of Defiance of the Sanhedrin 
(Mk 12:1-12) had also a basis in S. Its material will have formed 
part of a group of Vineyard parables uttered in defense of Jesus' 
divinely given authority. He assumes leadership of those who had 
repented at the baptism of John and receives their support in his 
effort to make the Father's house again a "house of prayer" instead 
of "a den of thieves." 

We have seen above that the parable of the Dissatisfied Wage- 
earners (Mt 20:1-16), another Vineyard parable, is certainly mis- 
placed, and has claims to be regarded as derived from S. We have 
also suggested the possibility that the parable of the Penitent Younger 
Son of Lk 15:11-32, commonly called the "Prodigal" Son, is merely 
the L development of what Mt gives here (21:28-31) in its original 
S form. These are of course only possibilities, but apart from the 
weighing of possibilities progress cannot be made toward the solution 
of the problem of S. So far as they go they indicate that S also was 
not without a Jerusalem section. 

Mt's motive for appending after Mk's allegorized parable of the 
Usurping Husbandmen the Q parable of the Slighted Invitation is 
not obscure. Mt has allegorized as well as Mk, completely rewrit- 
ing the parable, as we have seen (above, p. 65 f.) Moreover his 
allegorizing supplements bring out the motive of the section more 
strongly than before. To Mt the parable foretells the doom of the 
city "that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto 
her." It thus leads up appropriately to the denunciatory discourse. 
We cannot infer, however, that Mt's placing of the parable is nearer 
the original than that of Lk 14:15-24, shortly after the withdrawal 
from Galilee. Both settings are secondary, and both canonical 
evangelists display the same anxiety to forestall antinomian mis- 



244 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

use of the parable, Mt by appending verses 11-14, Lk by attaching 
from L the logia 14:25-35. 

The remainder of Mt's narrative introduction to his final Dis- 
course is a simple transcription of Mk's Debates in the temple with 
Mt's customary abbreviations and simplifications of Mk. Whence 
Mk derives the group does not appear, though Wendt regards it as a 
continuation of Mk 2:1-3:6. If so it rests ultimately on S. It is 
noticeable that the incident of the Widow's Mites (introduced some- 
what unexpectedly in Mk 12:41-44=Lk 13:34 f. d propos of the 
charge that the scribes "devour widows' estates") fails to appear in 
Mt. This may be due to intentional cancellation, or it may be because 
Mt followed a text of Mk which was free from this interpolation from 
L. The latter view is favored by the exceptional affinities of the 
story with L. Among the linguistic data we note the use of @ios = 
"living"; c/.Lk 15:11. 

Division B 

The nucleus of Division B is the Markan Doom-chapter which 
builds on the foundation of a logion foretelling the Overthrow of the 
Temple (Mk 13:1 f. = Mt 24:l-3 = Lk 21:5-7). It forms a typical 
apocalypse consisting of a series of eschatological sayings of Jesus 
along with an early Christian "prophecy." The basic saying is un- 
questionably authentic, and clearly belongs to the Jerusalem period; 
though the situation carefully described by Mk differs slightly from 
that of Lk 19:41-44, where L elaborates the same utterance along 
similar lines of application ("thou knewest not the time of thy visi- 
tation"). Even in Jn 2:18-22, while the Purging of the Temple is 
transposed for special reasons to the beginning of the ministry, this 
prediction of its overthrow remains inseparable from it. Whether L 
be dependent upon Mk or no, only study of L itself can determine, 
and this belongs to the source-analysis of Lk. L was certainly de- 
pendent on S and almost certainly unknown to Mt. This leaves the 
coincidence with Mt here unexplained save through S. Easton notes 
(p. 289) that "there is no compelling reason for dating this passage 
(of L) later than 70 A.D.," comparing Is. 29:3 for the phraseology, 
which affects 21 :20 also. The question must here be left open. L 
has similar warnings attached to a Q logion and including the parable 
of the Barren Figtree in Lk 13 :l-9. 

The peculiarity of Mk is that he builds up his apocalypse to the 
four disciples of the Doom of Jerusalem on the foundation of this 
Warning, using the same situation (Jesus overlooks the city from the 
Mount of Olives) and combining S q logia on Watchfulness for the 
Coming (Mk 13:28-37 = Mt 16:28 = Mk 9:l = Lk 9:27; Mt 5:17 = Lk 
16:17; Mt 25:13-15 = Lk 19:12 f.; Mt 24:42-51 = Lk 12:35-46; 



THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 245 

17:26-35), with an apocalypse of 40 A.D. used by Paul in 50 A.D. 
To this he adds extracts from Daniel and Micah. It is the specific 
application of these warnings and prophecies first to the events of 
40 A.D., afterwards (by adaptation) to those of 68-70 A.D., which 
determines the date of the Markan chapter as a whole (the logia of 
the Lord and the Christian apocalypse of 40 A.D. being encysted). 
The chapter as it stands is later than 70 A.D. To extricate and date 
the encysted S q logia, and to determine the relation of these to L 
is a complicated task, for which the reader may be referred to my 
GM, pp. 79-134, and to Appended Note IV. 

The question remains why the Lukan eschatology should be so 
singularly distributed. L, and apparently S also, placed the bulk 
of the S q material embodied in the Markan Doom-chapter, together 
with the Woes on Scribes and Pharisees which led up to it, at the 
Departure from Galilee (Lk 11:37-54; 12:35-13:9). Another block 
of similar Q material closes Lk's Perean Section (Lk 17:20-18:8). 
It is clearly due to the influence of Mk and L that parts of this reap- 
pear in the Doom-chapter transcribed from Mk (Mk 13 = Lk 21). 
Mt is much more influenced by Mk toward the same collocation. 
Hence we can only account for the Galilean placing of so large a 
part of Lk's eschatology by his fidelity to S, whose order was pre- 
dominantly gnomic, grouping material topically for homiletic and 
catechetic purposes. The topical distribution in Lk cannot be ac- 
counted for by any motives which appear to have actuated our third 
evangelist. Study of the Lukan order favors, therefore, the assump- 
tion of an intermediate document, the source L, which had already 
attempted (with or without knowledge of Mk) to place the S ma- 
terial in biographic order. Solution of the problem cannot be at- 
tained until comparison of Mk and L has determined the relation of 
these two sources to one another and their relation to S from which 
both draw. The careful analysis of Easton supplies the most impor- 
tant data for this further step. 

Our study of the Doom-chapter in Mk and Mt has already been 
summarized (above, p. -67 f.) No occasion appears for introducing 
new factors into the problem such as the supposition of independent 
resort by Mt to the apocalypse of 40 A.D., or to L. Mt follows the 
same method as elsewhere. His adaptation of Mk 13:5-23 merely 
heightens the apocalyptic features, brings into closer correspondence 
with the Old Testament the fulfilment of Dan. 12:11, and sharpens 
the warning against the ir\avf) which will follow the Great Tribula- 
tion. For this adaptation of Mk he has S, the Old Testament, and his 
own knowledge of developments since the catastrophe of 70 A.D. 
Every change made in the Markan apocalypse can be completely 
accounted for on this basis. With the closing words "Lo, I have 



246 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

foretold it to you" (24:25 = Mk 13:23) Mt indicates his complete 
agreement with the Markan construction as a whole, merely supple- 
menting the final paragraph on the Coming by a prefixed logion from 
S of which Mk had just given the substance (24:26-28=Lkl7:23 f., 
27=Mk 13:21-23). 

Looking back on the events of the great war which had culminated 
in the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, Mt sees 
in them a fulfilment of Jesus' vain warnings to repentance, fore- 
shadowed by the utterances of Micah and Daniel. His alterations 
in the parable of the Slighted Invitation (above, p. 65 f .) reflect this 
conviction as clearly as those by which Mk had previously allegorized 
the Vineyard parable of the Usurping Husbandmen to which Mt 
appends it (Mk 12:1-12). Only for two purposes does Mt employ the 
bulk of the additional material supplied by S and 0. Both are typical. 
(1) In chapter 23 Mt expands Mk's brief mention of Jesus' Warning 
against the scribes into seven Woes against the scribes and Phari- 
sees; for to Mt the scribes and Pharisees are responsible for the whole 
catastrophe. He attaches accordingly at the end the quotation from 
"the wisdom of God" predicting the overthrow. (2) In 24:29-25:46 
he expands Mk's comparatively meager moral application of the apoc- 
alypse by extending Mk's series of S q logia on Watchfulness for the 
Coming (Mk 13:28-37). The warning becomes thus the most elabo- 
rate of all Mt's great Discourses. The student is confronted by two 
problems: (1) the employment of S and exemplified in both sections. 
The data for this are perhaps best exhibited in translations of the 
text supplied with marginal indications of the sources such as our 
Part III affords, or in critical commentaries such as those of McNeile 
and Easton. He must consider (2) the motives reflected in this two- 
fold development. To the latter interest we may limit the few words 
our special introduction to Book V permits. 

The seven Woes on scribes and Pharisees of Mt 23:13-33 are 
brought to a close by a denunciation not drawn from the source but 
attached from Mt's own pen: 2 

Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Ye serpents, ye gener- 
ation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Gehenna? 

The Woes are preceded by a comparatively slight expansion of Mk 
12:38-40, setting over against the (alleged) arrogance of the rabbi, 
the humility of the Christian teacher OcafljjyT/rifr). It closes with 
the logion of Mk 9:35 = Lk 9:48; 14:11; 18:14, and embodies in 
verse 4 that of Lk 11 :46, displaying thus the usual type of Matthean 
composition. The contrasted pictures cannot, of course, be taken as 
2 Note the use of 3:7= Lk 3:7 as in 12:34. 



THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 247 

an impartial description of Synagogue rabbi and Christian catechist 
as they were in Mt's time. The bitter hatred evinced is itself a needed 
corrective to our judgment. Its chief service to the historian is its 
lurid reflection of the hostility between the opposing camps. This 
is one of the unfortunate, but characteristic notes of the environ- 
ment. Its better side appears in the ideal presented, a truly Christian 
ideal of humility in leadership which has better reflection in the Dis- 
course of Book IV on Church Administration. 

The seven Woes of verses 13-31 form a free parallel to Lk 11:39- 
52, with rearrangement of the order and expansion in verses 15-22. 
Oral tradition has been at work here, as in the expansion of the 
Beatitudes. In particular the indictment of the scribes for juggling 
with the form of oaths (verses 16-22) recalls Mt's expansion of 5:34- 
36. Unfortunately this particular type of expansion is exceptionally 
easy where rival religious bodies live in close proximity. Like 
the similar denunciation of the scribes in the Galilean scene (Mt 
12:31-37), where Lk places the group of Woes (Lk 11:42-52), these 
additions are more instructive to the historian than edifying to the 
believer. 

We may be as grateful to Mt for restoring the connection between 
the two parts of the quotation from the "wisdom of God" which Lk 
has severed (Mt 23:34-39 = Lk 11:49-51; 13:34 f.) as to Lk for pre- 
serving the proof that it is an extract of the same type as that of 
Clement ad Cor. Ivii. from Prov. 1:23-33; for Clement quotes this 
passage as from "all-virtuous wisdom." The meaning is, the words 
quoted are an utterance of the divine Spirit, source of all the virtues, 
in the writings of the sages. 

It is not the literary taste of Mt, though that is considerable, 
which preserves this eloquent climax. The coincidence of Mt and 
Lk shows that it formed the close of the corresponding discourse in 
S, whether located as in Mt or as in Lk. This earliest known gospel 
source already looks back upon the complete rejection of the gospel 
message by Israel as a whole. Indeed it seems to assume that the 
penalty has already been inflicted, and counts this a fulfilment of 
the plaint of divine Wisdom grieving over her wayward people. 
But the glance of S is not merely backward. Wisdom's dwelling 
now is forsaken because her messengers were ever received only 
with stoning and martyrdom; but there is still a possibility of re- 
turn if henceforth her messengers are received with blessing in the 
name of Jehovah: 

Lo, I send you prophets and sages and scribes. 
Some ye will kill and crucify, 
Scourging them in your synagogues, 
And persecuting them from city to city. 



248 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, 
From the blood of Abel the righteous 
To the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias. 3 
Whom ye slew between temple and altar. 
Yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation. 

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, 

That stonest them that are sent unto thee, 

How often would I have gathered thy children, 

As a mother-bird gathers her nestlings under her wings! 

And ye would not. Lo your house is left to you forsaken. For I tell 
you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye say: Blessed is he that comes 
in the name of Jehovah. 

As a literal utterance of the Prophet of Nazareth the figure of the 
sheltering wings (cf. Is. 31:5; Ps. 91:4) would not be free from an 
element of the grotesque. In the mouth of the divine spirit of redeem- 
ing Wisdom yearning for the restoration of the wayward and dis- 
obedient people it reflects the most poetic and typical feeling of con- 
temporary Jewish aspiration. It reflects no less admirably the spirit, 
the viewpoint, and the Christology of S: Jesus the incarnate, 
redemptive Wisdom of God. If we are right in regarding the line 
"Yea, I say unto you," etc., as added by the writer of S it suggests 
proximity to the great catastrophe. Another prose comment is at- 
tached at the close of the quotation. 

The other supplement of Mt completes Mk's teaching of Watch- 
fulness for the Coming with further extracts from S developed ac- 
cording to Mt's deepest interest and most consummate style. To 
call Mt "the most apocalyptic of the Gospels" is but one aspect of the 
truth. Mt is emphatically the product of his age, and it needs only 
the comparisons already given of contemporary Christian literature 
(above, p. 76) to appreciate the intensity of his appeal to that reli- 
gious motive which for many centuries has been the Church 's reliance 
to hold in check the inroads of moral lassitude and indifference. Suc- 
cessive ages respond to different motives, and our own has swung far 
away from that of reward and punishment at the divine tribunal. 
Higher motives, we may hope, will give sanction to the same Chris- 
tian ethic in generations to come. But the time is not far past when 
the terrors of Mt's great picture of the Last Judgment held all Chris- 
tendom in thrall. 

The picture has proved its greatness by its effect. Detailed study 
of the parable of the Figtree with its two connected logia (Mk 13:28- 
32=Mt 24:32 = 36 = Lk 21:29-33; cf. Mk 9:l = Lk 9:27 = Mt 16:28, 

3 An error for "son of Jehoiada" (II Chron. 24:20 ff.). In Lk the patronymic 
does not appear. In Ev. Naz. it was corrected. 



THE FIFTH BOOK OF MT 249 

and Mk 13 :31 = Mt 5 :17 = Lk 16 :17) will show that Mt at first merely 
follows Mk. He parallels the closing appeal of Mk 13:33-37 with the 
S q material (otherwise placed) out of which it is constructed (Mt 
25 :13-15 ; 24 :42 = Lk 12 :38, 40 ; 19 :12 f . ; 21 :34-36) . He supplies in the 
Q logia depicting the Consummation and the Q parables of the Watch- 
ing Householder and the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants the S mk 
material from which Mk has drawn (24:37-51 = Lk 17:26-35; 12:39- 
46; cf. Mk 13:33, 35). 

Finally, with increasing freedom, Mt developes the S q parables of 
the servants who wait for their master's Return from the Wedding 
(25:l-13=Lk 12:35f.; 13:25) and the Entrusted Funds (25:14-30=Lk 
19:12-27), and closes all with his truly grandiose description of the 
Judgment in the Consummation (25:31-46). Even this closing free 
depiction of Mt's own conception of the last assize does not wholly 
lack an authentic nucleus. Its central theme is "Inasmuch as ye did 
it, or did it not, to these least, even my brethren "... an echo of the 
logion of 10:40-42. There is nothing here but fidelity to Jesus' 
message as Mt understands it; nor does he abuse the principle of 
freedom applied in Synagogue and Church alike to haggadic teaching. 
Here above all he avails himself of the evangelist 's privilege of record- 
ing what Jesus "would have" said. But conception and phraseology 
alike reflect unmistakably the "converted rabbi" of 90-100 A.D. 



CHAPTER XVII 
THE EPILOGUE 

THE striking peculiarity of Mt's account of the Passion and Resur- 
rection is its limitation to Mk and those fungoid developments on the 
stock of Markan tradition which we have grouped in the present 
volume under the designation N. 

We may readily believe that in the pre-Markan period of accumu- 
lation of evangelic tradition writings appeared some of the earlier 
of which had no more of articulation than the Oxyrhynchus logia, 
others, later, taking on more and more of the form of topical 
discourses possibly linked together by a thread of narrative. It 
is probable that S q represents a writing of this later type, not 
a mere Spruchsammlung, but a Redesammlung formally introduced 
by an account of the ministry of the Baptist and the Vocation 
and Temptation of Jesus and centering upon the demonstration 
of his claim to be "He that should come" by the character of his 
"mighty works" and "gospel to the poor"; and it is conceivable that 
such a composition should close without a mention of the culminating 
scenes of the drama. Serious objections cannot fail to suggest them- 
selves to such a view, but seeing that it is the dominant critical view 
it must be conceivable. The idea is not admissible, however, that 
after the appearance and wide circulation of Mk, understood to 
.represent the apostolic witness of Peter, any gospel constructed on 
such a plan as Mt's could leave the reader standing before the picture 
of the last Judgment, his ears still ringing to the echo of its words of 
doom upon rebellious Israel, and thus conclude with the great Dis- 
course on the Consummation, leaving unmentioned the outcome of 
the drama. Mt, which began with an elaborate Preamble relating the 
miraculous birth and ancestry of the Saviour and his Epiphany to wise 
men from the East, would have been a sorely ill-balanced composition 
if it had not closed with an Epilogue telling of the Saviour's crucifixion 
by his own people, followed by resurrection through the power of God 
to bring knowledge of salvation to the world. The seventh and final 
section of the Gospel was therefore a "foregone conclusion"; but why, 
out of the great variety of accounts of these scenes of pre-eminent 
importance to the faith, does Mt so rigidly restrict himself to Mk? 

For it is not even the original Mk that he reproduces. If any trace 
still survives of the original ending of Mk it is the ending (itself 

250 



THE EPILOGUE 251 

mutilated) of Ev. Petri. The fact is obvious and widely admitted that 
neither Mt nor Lk has anything more than the truncated Mk of our 
oldest and most authoritative texts, ending abruptly at 16:8. Lk 
pieces this out with several mutually discordant anecdotes of Petrine 
tradition to produce a story centering geographically in Jerusalem, 
and this Lukan-Petrine tradition is followed in the so-called Longer 
Ending of Mk adopted in most of the later texts. The Shorter Ending 
of Mk, so-called, exhibited in very few Mss, paraphrases as follows 
Mt's meager attempt to bring the story to a close with mention of the 
resurrection appearance in Galilee and the apostolic Commission: 

And they (the women mentioned in Mk 16:1-8) briefly reported all the 
things commanded them to Peter and his company. And after these things 
Jesus himself appeared to them, and from the East even to the West sent 
forth by them the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation. 

From the point where Mk breaks off Mt offers little more than a 
parallel to this late and lame attempt to round off a mutilated stump. 
It is true that after the first attempt in Mt 28:8 to patch up the 
unfinished close Mt adds another in verses 9 f . to the same general 
effect. But this, though not by Mt's own hand, rests on the same 
Markan basis, showing equal lack of further knowledge. Verses 16-20 
supply nothing definite beyond the general inferences which the 
Shorter Ending also draws from Mk's interrupted story, save the 
clause "but some doubted." This does indeed indicate knowledge of 
the currency of some anecdote of the type of Jn 20 :24 f ., but it gives no 
particulars. Thus, even when Mk fails, Mt refuses to leave the same 
narrow domain. He prefers a generalizing inference of the same type 
as those of the editorial Shorter Ending, to any excursion into the 
fields of outside story. 

And this is not all. In my BG, pp. 225-238 and my GM, pp. 187- 
203, reasons were given for the conviction that an earlier form of the 
Markan tradition did not contain the sepulcher stories beginning at 
Mk 15:40, but passed, as Paul does, directly from the cross to the 
Appearance to Peter. Whatever element of truth may be disclosed in 
this attempt to go back by way of the fragment of Ev. Petri to an 
earlier stage of Markan tradition, and ultimately to Paul's report of 
the apostolic witness (I Cor. 15:1-11), one thing is undeniable. It 
is our present Mk, in its present mutilated condition, which forms the 
sole basis of Mt. Such apocryphal outgrowths as Mt adds here and 
there are formed upon the same stock. 

This would be impossible in any gospel emanating from Jerusalem 
circles, or within the reach of influence from the Jerusalem church at 
any date before 135 A.c. 1 It is almost equally incredible in any gospel 

1 Cf. Ev. Hebr. in Appended Note VI. 



252 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

originating within the same period in the near neighborhood of An- 
tioch, which gives us the Ev. Petri and at least large factors of the 
Lukan tradition. Caesarea, Antioch, and the Pauline mission field 
are not the regions in which to look for legendary accounts of the Fate 
of Judas conflicting as Mt 27:3-10 does both with Acts 1:18-20 and 
with Papias' account derived from "the Elders"; nor for disputes with 
the Synagogue over Mk's story of the Burial (Mt 27:62-66; 28:11-15). 
In short the Epilogue belongs to a region where Mk in its present 
canonical form was basic and supremely authoritative. The church 
where Mt first circulated anonymously as "the" Gospel had drawn 
its earliest traditions from the West. Mk in its present mutilated form 
had come to them with quasi-canonical authority almost from the 
beginnings of their church life. To Mt Mk is the Gospel, which only 
needs supplementation from S. 

The significance of the phenomena to which we have just adverted 
will not be fully appreciated until comparison is made with certain 
other types of gospel tradition, in particular the Petrine of Lk and the 
Jacobean of the Ev. Hebr. Both must be compared with the apostolic 
Resurrection gospel of I Cor. 15:1-11. 

At least in its Lukan form, which has been found Antiochian in 
type, the Petrine resurrection gospel is committed to Jerusalem as the 
exclusive center of the beginnings of the Church, and this form of the 
story originally included the primary Manifestation to Peter. James 
comes into view in Acts only indirectly and at a later time, without 
any mention of the Manifestation "to James, " although Paul authen- 
ticates this beyond possibility of doubt as a factor of importance only 
second to the experience of Peter in the founding of the Church 
(I Cor. 15:7). The Antiochian tradition thus gives a place to the 
Jacobean, but a place distinctly secondary. 

In the Ev. Hebr., a Gospel in the Greek language of not much later 
date than Mt, whose field of circulation was eastern Palestine down 
to the border of Egypt, the Manifestation to James is made primary. 
The resurrection scenes begin in Jerusalem, but it is probably in 
Galilee at the home of Jesus ; mother and brethren that the risen Lord 
institutes the Resurrection Feast through the agency of James. In 
Ev. Hebr. the migration from Galilee to Jerusalem will have been 
under leadership not of Peter but of James. 

Exclusive dependence on Mk for the entire Passion and Resurrection 
story is hardly credible where either the Petrine tradition of Lk-Acts 
or the Jacobean of Ev. Hebr. were dominant. Where, then, shall we 
place the origin of Mt? 

The writing in which adjustment is attempted between the Markan 
tradition in its Matthean development and the Lukan is the large 
fragment of Ev. Petr., a composite gospel of the early second century 



THE EPILOGUE 253 

of whose circulation in that century we are informed by Eusebius 
(HE, VI, xii.). Serapion, Bishop of Antioch in 190-203, a writer on 
the subject of the Gospel canon who also played a considerable part 
in the history of the Edessene church, permitted for a time the con- 
tinued use of the Ev. Petri by the church in Rhossus in the north- 
ern border of his diocese, but ultimately forbade it on doctrinal 
grounds. Our fragment, covering the entire story of the Passion and 
Resurrection, is from a late copy found in Egypt, but the mixture of 
Aramaic and Greek forms in the fragment shows a provenance from 
the diocese of Serapion. Now in Ev. Petri some probable traces re- 
main of the original ending of Mk, side by side with the substance of 
Mt 26-28. Unfortunately our fragment breaks off just at the point 
where the eleven disciples, who had remained in hiding in Jerusalem 
during the eight days of the fatal Passover, have returned "mourning 
and weeping" to Galilee; for no message from the women has reached 
them. The closing words of the fragment are, 

And I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, taking our nets, went 
away to the sea. And there were with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom 
the Lord . . . 

The attempted harmony of Ev. Petri, combining Mt with a form of 
the Petrine tradition similar to Jn 21 and probably based on that of 
the lost ending of Mk, gives us a clew to the region where conflict 
between these two variant resurrection gospels had taken place not 
far from 100 A.D. 

It is only in the references of Paul and Lk, giving no particulars, 
that we learn of the primary fact of the Church's history, the Mani- 
festation to Peter. The "Petrine" supplements of Mt 14:28-31 and 
16:17-19 probably contain indirect reflections of it; but Mt's Epi- 
logue takes no interest whatever in the Manifestation to Peter. 
Even the faint trace contained in Mk's account of the angel's mes- 
sage through the women "Go, tell his disciples and Peter" (Mk 16:7) 
disappears in the Matthean transcript, which omits "and Peter" 
(Mt 28:7). In Mk, and now still more in Mt, the interest has swung 
completely away from the apostolic outline, occupied exclusively 
with the resurrection appearances, and remains centered upon the 
story of the Women at the Sepulcher, who report (in Mk fail to 
report) seeing a vision of angels and finding the tomb empty. Of this 
entire episode Paul seems to know nothing. 

If our analysis of Mk be well founded it is the conflict of this tra- 
dition of the Empty Tomb with the older tradition of the Manifesta- 
tion to Peter into which it has been inserted after Mk 15:40 which 
accounts for the loss of the original ending. For the bringing in of the 
Jerusalem shrine-story could only issue in a disruption of that Gospel 



254 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

in its earlier form and finally to the loss of its most authentic Petrine 
element. In any case we no longer possess the most precious of all 
the records of the beginnings of the resurrection faith, the story of 
how Peter "turned again" and "stablished his brethren." 

Fortunately we can turn to a record much older than any of our 
Gospels, and certified to by one who includes his own experience 
with the rest, in Paul's record of the apostolic witness ("whether it 
were I or they") briefly summarized in I Cor. 15:1-11. Here is to be 
found both a record of the controversy regarding the body, and of 
the common starting point of all the divergent traditions. It was the 
effort of these by an adoption of secondary reports such as that of the 
Empty Tomb to meet objections of the type referred to by Paul 
(I Cor. 15:35) to the doctrine of a resurrection "of the flesh." 2 But 
the various adaptations came into conflict with one another, as well 
as with the apostolic outline of the Appearances, and thus lost from 
sight the most indispensable and vital record of all. 

Conspicuous among the rest for its departure from the primitive 
form to elaborate the secondary and controversial is our Gospel of 
Mt. Mk's departure from the apostolic type was fatal to its own 
unity. Mt made the matter worse. We need only compare his Epi- 
logue first with Paul, afterwards with the Gospel whose story it tran- 
scribes and embellishes with apocryphal supplements, to appreciate 
the effects of a further step along this pathway of degeneracy. For 
its outcome is this: Criticism now confronts the world with the as- 
surance that of the two primary gospel documents attesting the funda- 
mental faith of the Church, the older, S, never had any account of the 
Passion and Resurrection; the other, Mk, once had one, but has lost it! 

All forms of the Resurrection gospel must be derived originally from 
the same contemporary record, briefly summarized by Paul as the story 
told by all witnesses alike. It is absolutely limited to the "Manifesta- 
tions." As presented in I Cor. 15:1-11 these fall into two groups, the 
first of which begins with the Appearance to Peter, the second with 
an Appearance to James. It will be noted that Paul's first visit to 
Jerusalem after his conversion was to become acquainted with Peter, 
whose "revelation" of the risen Christ he compares to his own in Gal. 
2:8, and also with that of "James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:18 f.). 

The scene of the first group of appearances, including at least that 
to Peter and that to "the Twelve" which immediately follows, can 
only have been Galilee; for the concurrent witness of Mk, Jn 21, 
and the Ev. Petr. quite outweighs the belated and harmonistic cor- 
rection of Lk. Indeed it is only in Galilee that we can imagine the 
"scattered" flock to have reassembled so soon after the crucifixion. 
We may therefore identify with considerable confidence these first 

2 So in the so-called Apostles' Creed. 



THE EPILOGUE 255 

two appearances with the incidents anticipated in Jesus' prayer that 
Simon, "when he has turned again" will "stablish his brethren" 
(Lk 22:32). All the older and more reliable reports concur in repre- 
senting the following as the course of events: (1) a soul-shaking over- 
turn in the experience of Peter, (2) a sharing of this experience with 
"Peter's company" (ot irepl ILtrpov). We may accordingly understand 
Paul to be referring to the same two closely related events which are 
also implied in the angel's message in Mk 16:7; for the angel differen- 
tiates between an appearance to Peter and another to his associates. 
There was a manifestation first, says Paul, "to Cephas, afterwards 
(<=7reiTa) to the Twelve " and this seems to be reflected in the symbolism 
of Mt 14:28-33. The risen Christ "appeared" to Simon; then, when 
Peter had rallied his former associates, including at least one not be- 
longing to the original list (Matthias?) he "appeared to the Twelve." 

The closing appearance of the first group "to above five hundred 
brethren at once," is necessarily still located in Galilee because of the 
impracticability of assembling such a number elsewhere. But it leads 
over to a different scene in Paul's comment, "of whom the greater 
part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep." For it has been 
acutely observed that Paul could not have known the mortality 
statistics of this body of "original disciples" (cf. Acts 21:16), even 
in so general a way as the comment implies, if they were still scattered 
in the villages and hamlets of Galilee. As Paul knew the 500 "original 
disciples" they were still a united body which can be no other than 
the Galilean mother church in Jerusalem, formed under the leader- 
ship of Peter (cf. Mt 16:17-19). We must therefore place a dividing 
line between this Petrine group and the series of appearances which 
follows the comment beginning with that "to James." The second 
series must have been preceded, or shortly followed by a migration 
of the brotherhood of Galilean believers, accompanied by "the mother 
of Jesus and his brethren" (Acts 1:14) to Jerusalem. Whether the 
Appearance to James was in Galilee (as seems to be implied in the 
Ev. Hebr. fragment) or in Jerusalem, Paul does not say. The occasion 
of the migration will have been the Pentecost following the tragic 
Passover, and the last stage of the journey at the " place of baptizing," 
may have been signalized by the adoption of a Christianized form 
of the Johannine rite of baptism, then, or shortly after, followed by 
the "outpouring of the Spirit." 

The second group of appearances in Paul's summary begins, " Then 
he appeared to James; then to all the apostles." Whether by the 
latter term a larger body are meant than "the Twelve" is doubtful, 
but the parallelism suggests something like a new beginning after 
Peter's rallying of the Twelve and the 500. Apparently the new 
impetus was given by the accession of Jesus' mother and brethren 



256 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

with James at their head. Certainly "James the Lord's brother" 
and the "apostles" later formed a group in the Jerusalem body 
distinct from "Peter's company" (ot -rrepl Uerpov). 

Comparison of the fragment from the Ev. Hebr. will show that it 
deduces church institutions from "James the Just" as exclusively as 
Mk and its satellites from Peter. As in Acts 21 :17 f . so also for Ev. 
Hebr. and the Clementina the official representatives of the Church 
are "James and the elders." It cannot well be doubted that this 
great mother church, which even down to the period of the Clemen- 
tina (c. 200) placed James the Lord's brother in the position of 
"Bishop of bishops" and described Peter as making periodical re- 
ports to him of the results of his missionary journeys, had plenty of 
traditions of its own, more especially such as related the Appearance 
of the Risen Christ to James and Founding of the Church in the 
Resurrection Faith. Indeed if we are right in identifying the "tradi- 
tions of the Elders" which Papias delighted to collect with those of 
"the successors (<5ia56xot) of the Apostles in Jerusalem," a con- 
siderable number of such "traditions" are actually in our possession 
through the care of Irenaeus. For although Irenaeus thinks of them 
as traditions of Ephesus their intrinsic character plainly marks them 
as Palestinian in derivation. 

Only one of these Jerusalem traditions, however, bears any re- 
semblance to the supplements made by Mt to Mk's story. This 
belongs to Jerusalem as inevitably as the Sepulcher tradition itself, 
and would circulate almost as widely. It is an unprintable legend of 
the Fate of Iscariot, connecting it as in Acts and Mt 27:3-10 with 
the region outside the wall of Jerusalem bearing the sinister name 
"Field of Blood." But Papias' form of this Jerusalem tradition is 
in irreconcilable conflict with Mt. 

Mt's story of the Passion and Resurrection shows, therefore, no 
close affinity with the cycle of Jerusalem traditions, and very little 
with the oral traditions of Antioch and Caesarea. It traces the whole 
body of gospel tradition to a mission of the Twelve from Galilee 
without any mention of Jerusalem save as the city which slew the 
Lord and drove out his apostles. For a gospel reputed to emanate 
from the mother church in Jerusalem it is certainly extraordinary 
that one could not infer from it that James and the mother and 
brethren of Jesus ever changed their original attitude of unbelief, 
if not hostility (Mt 12:46-50; 13:53-58), nor that such a thing as a 
church in Jerusalem had ever existed! 

Our analysis of the Epilogue of Mt involves two elements, Mk and 
N, blended as in Books IV and V. In the background, hidden behind 
its narrative development in L we may dimly discern the outline of 



THE EPILOGUE 257 

S, whose closing discourse (or discourses) of warning, comfort, prom- 
ise, and apostolic commission seem to be remotely reflected in Jn 
16:1-8 and less remotely in Q and L. We have sought to bring all 
these, together with such uncanonical fragments as survive, into 
line with the apostolic resurrection gospel of I Cor. 15:1-11 in the 
hope of forming an adequate idea of the transmission and develop- 
ment of the resurrection story. Mt's Epilogue exhibits this develop- 
ment in its latest canonical form. 

We have seen that neither S nor L really lacked reference to that 
resurrection faith without whose expression no agglutination of the 
"sayings and doings of the Lord," whether gnomic or biographic hi 
form, could hope to meet the need of the churches. Even a Redesamm- 
lung which began with such a forecast of the career of the Son of 
God as that depicted in the stories of the Baptism and the Tempta- 
tion, and which made central a discourse condemning the chief 
cities of Jesus' activity because their inhabitants turned a deaf ear 
to his message and a blind eye to his "mighty works," could not end 
without some intimation as to whether "the Son of God" overcame 
this resistance or not. If S when employed by our Synoptic evangel- 
ists had already advanced thus far along the road toward biography, 
we should expect at least a conclusion showing that the career of 
"the Son of God" did not end in disaster but in victory. The expecta- 
tion meets reasonable fulfilment in a form corresponding to the gen- 
eral structure of the work if we take Lk 22:14-38 to be L's develop- 
ment of a Farewell Discourse at the Supper before the Passover, part 
of which appears also in Mt 19:28 proving its S q foundation. 

.It is true that the L references to martyrdom and reunion in the 
heavenly Jerusalem are only in the form of prediction. But to the 
reader familiar with the event the fulfilled prediction of Peter's 
collapse retrieved by the intervention of Jesus would give the highest 
incentive to infer fulfilment for the remainder. In the form of a Fare- 
well Discourse before the fatal Passover S could embody all that the 
reader would require, whether of testimony to the fact of the resur- 
rection, or of apostolic commission to proclaim it, to bring his series 
of discourses to an appropriate close. Our analysis of the sources 
gives sufficient proof that such a parting discourse and second mis- 
sion of the Twelve were actually contained in S, but a dislocation 
has occurred by which their content has been thrown back to an 
earlier situation in the narrative. This is probably due to the effort 
of biographers, beginning with Mk, to bring the data into an order 
having better claim to be considered chronological. Using this demon- 
strable item of Q material as the nucleus for our conception of Mt's 
use of the closing section of Mk we may take account now of his modi- 
fications and supplements to the basic narrative, aiming to read Mk 



258 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

14-16 with Mt's eyes, and observing what means he employs to 
adapt the story to his specific purposes. 

Of the legend of Judas' Fate we have already taken account. It 
has not yet reached the low level of the tradition of the Elders quoted 
by Apollinaris of Laodicea from Papias, but tends already strongly 
toward it. For its "Scripture fulfilment" of Zech. 11:12 (wrongly 
ascribed to "Jeremiah") we must refer the reader to Appended Note 
V, and for critical discussion of the whole story and its probable 
origin to the excellent "Additional Note on 27:3-10" on pp. 408 ff. 
of McNeile's Commentary. Ev. Naz., according to Jerome, corrected 
the blunder in verses 9 f . 

A few touches in the transcript of Mk's story of the Passion are of 
interest because of their relation to early controversy. As we have 
seen, Apollinaris of Hierapolis was able to harmonize Mt 26:1 ff. with 
the chronology of Jn and Phrygian Quartodeciman practice by an 
exegesis satisfactory to himself and the leaders of the Asiatic churches. 
Its precise nature can only be conjectured. Mt as usual clings close 
to Mk, but at least avoids Mk's ambiguity by a full dating, specify- 
ing the high priesthood of "Caiaphas." For the issue involved we 
must refer to McNeile. The transfer of the clause "for the forgive- 
ness of sins" from Mt's account of the Baptism of John (3:2) to the 
Institution of the Cup in 26 :28 has also a certain relation to current 
polemic (cf. Jn 1:29-34). Again Mt appends a verse (26:25) to Mk's 
story of Jesus' Prediction of Betrayal (Mk 14:17-21) to make the 
application to Judas more specific. Lk 22:21-23 is the most general 
of all. The scene of the Arrest in Gethsemane (Mk 14:32-52), which 
Lk embellishes with the supplement of the Angelic Support and 
Sweat like Drops of Blood (22:43 f., /3 text), and a Healing of the 
wound inflicted by Peter's sword (22:51) has its analogous supple- 
ments responding to similar doctrinal difficulties but differently 
placed and wholly independent. In Mt 26:52-54 Jesus rebukes 
Peter's drawing of the sword, declaring that "ten legions of angels" 
would be at his disposal for the asking from his Father,' but he re- 
frains in order that "the Scriptures might be fulfilled." The enig- 
matic reference of Mk 14:51 f., intelligible only where Markan tradi- 
tions were current, is omitted. 

Apocryphal supplements are also attached to the Markan account 
of Jesus' Trial. In Mt 27:19 we have Pilate's Wife's Dream, and 
in verses 24 f. Pilate Washing his Hands of Jesus' Blood, the guilt of 
which the Jews take upon "ourselves and our children." The bitterly 
anti-Jewish animus of this and the stylistic relation of both to the 
communications by angels and dreams of the Preamble are apparent 
without further comment. 

Of similar character and motive are the supplements to Mk's 



THE EPILOGUE 259 

story of the Crucifixion. To the statement that "the chief priests and 
scribes reviled Jesus" Mt 27:43 supplies the words employed, blending 
Ps. 22:9 with Sap. 2:13. To the statement that the veil of the temple 
was rent (Mk 15:38; cf. Test. Levi iv. 1) he adds that an earthquake 
took place opening the tombs, so that "many bodies of the buried 
saints were raised up, and coming forth from the tombs after his 
resurrection entered into the Holy City and appeared to many." 
Ev. Naz. had a further supplement about the collapse of the great 
lintel of the temple. Ignatius (Magn. ix.) considered the resurrected 
"saints" to mean the Old Testament prophets. Such supplements are 
certainly neither early nor authentic, but they indicate by their 
language (the buried "saints," Jerusalem "the Holy City"; cf. 4:5 
and Rev. 11:2) the intensely Jewish character of the circles whence 
they come. 

Still more apparent is this late and apocryphal character of Mt's 
supplements in those attached to Mk's story of the Empty Tomb. 
Controversy with the Synagogue has here advanced a stage beyond 
the Markan. There the reader stood at the point where the discovery 
and report of the women left no room for further question of the 
reality of the resurrection, which the promised Appearance in Galilee, 
now broken off, will undoubtedly have confirmed. Mt advances 
beyond this point. He takes cognizance of unforeseen objections 
raised by "the Jews" to Mk's account. The answer had been made 
"Jesus' disciples stole away the body by night in order to support the 
false belief they champion." To this opposing charge, based, we may 
note, not upon any knowledge either local or historical, the Christian 
apologist replies by a new affirmation. Removal of the body by 
stealth was impossible because the Jews were forewarned and had 
taken elaborate precautions in the shape of a Roman guard, sealing 
of the stone, etc. Reply: In that case the guard would have seen and 
reported the alleged miraculous occurrences. Countercharge: They 
were bribed not to. Final allegation : The report of these transactions 
is current among the Jews "unto this day." 

This series of charges and countercharges stands avowedly for a 
period of indefinite length, during which Church and Synagogue have 
debated the question raised in Mk's story of the Empty Tomb. But 
the closing statement of the authentic Mk that the women "said 
nothing to any man, for they were afraid" is itself a defense of the 
late appearance of the story. It adopts the usual device of the apoc- 
alypses to account for the fact that the apostolic Resurrection gospel 
had not a word to say about a proof which if known must have been 
sooner appealed to. Mk's story of the Empty Sepulcher is now 
brought forward as a new and convincing proof not known to the 
apostolic generation. Mk relates it as a tradition of the Jerusalem 



260 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

church in 75-80 A.D. How much longer time must be allowed for the 
exchange of charge and countercharge in Christian-Jewish polemic 
recorded in our Matthean supplement? 

It is worth while to note that the controversy, besides being pro- 
longed, is on both sides a controversy "on paper." There is no appeal 
on either side to contemporary situation, conditions or facts. Nothing 
exists as a basis except the story of Mk 15:40 ff. elaborated with new 
details, each of which matches an objection of the opponent. Just 
as passages from the Old Testament are debated back and forth in 
the Synagogue with apologetic and midrashic supplements, but no 
new facts, so the text of Mk the truncated Mk is debated with no 
resort to any outside source of tradition or information. The circle 
is closed. The horizon of Jew and Christian alike is bounded by the 
letter of Mk. This Gospel is already treated in the region concerned as 
a kind of Christian Holy Scripture. 

Our survey of the Epilogue confirms abundantly the conclusions 
previously reached on broader grounds. Mt represents a late and 
degenerate type of Synoptic tradition, remote even from the more 
varied developments incorporated by Lk. Its own incorporations, 
so far as drawn from the same incomparable document S, have of 
course the same golden quality, though in actual extent the added 
material goes little beyond that included under Q. Its other incorpora- 
tions are notably inferior. As respects S Mt's contribution is rather a 
matter of text and order, than of substance. It helps the critic to 
restore something of the outline of this precanonical source, but lacks 
the rich development of L. Nevertheless by the very fact of this 
deficiency Mt enables us in its occasional contacts to go behind L to 
the oldest source of all. It even supplies scanty but sufficient evidence 
to show that S did not leave the reader staggered by ignoring at its 
close the whole significance of the religious drama, but really em- 
bodied the religious values of the story in a final discourse whose scene 
was the Farewell Supper in the Upper Room. Considerations of 
literary form and practical use led to the accumulating in this Fare- 
well Discourse of no small amount of material which Mk, no doubt 
with excellent historical reason, carried back to earlier situations. 
The Farewell Supper as described in L (Lk 22:14-38, text) surely 
represents far more closely than the meager traces of Q material in 
Mt's Epilogue the actual ending of S. This ending in several respects 
resembled the Farewell Discourses of the Upper Room which in Jn 
replace the Synoptic Doom-chapter and Denunciation of the Scribes. 
Thus the witness of Mt is not so much an end in itself as an aid to the 
recognition and recovery elsewhere of a better source. 

Few compositions afford a better application than Mt of the noble 
word of Paul concerning the message to the world wherewith he and 



THE EPILOGUE 261 

his fellow missionaries felt themselves entrusted: "We have this 
treasure in earthen vessels." As the age of the great missionaries and 
martyrs receded into the past the quality of the "earthen vessels" 
which contained the treasure became progressively inferior. Largely 
it has been our thankless task to point to these unavoidable evidences 
of degeneration. To the larger public gold is gold and clay clay. The 
discoveries of the archaeologist are valued accordingly in the public 
press. But to the archaeologist himself, and to the historian who 
follows him, this popular valuation is the climax of absurdity. Gold 
is mere gold. The museums already have specimens of it in abundance 
before which the crowd stands agape, though for the most part it 
merely duplicates what the investigator knew before. But pottery! 
the earthenware! This has a story to tell wholly unknown before. 
At the excavations the visitor will see the gold viewed with indiffer- 
ence, while shouts of delight greet the discovery of a potsherd to give 
longed-for evidences of history and date. 

The Study of Mt offers a parallel. This late Gospel holds indeed a 
golden treasure, sacred, invaluable; but for the most part the treasure 
was known elsewhere and largely in better form. But it holds it in 
an earthen vessel. And this indeed, though none of the finest, tells 
the story of its age. It shows us the adaptation of the everlasting 
gospel to the post-apostolic age and environment, a story which to 
the historian makes the meaning of the treasure itself larger and richer 
than before. 



PART III 
TRANSLATION 



MARGINAL SYMBOLS 

M= material derived from Mk. 

N= material derived from the Nazarene targum. 

O= material derived from oral sources. 

P= material peculiar to this Gospel. 

Q= material belonging to the "double tradition." 

R= material contributed by the Redactor. 

S= material derived from the "Second Source." 

In a few cases words and phrases apparently proverbial in character 
and derivation are enclosed in " ". 

Marginal indications of secondary derivation are enclosed in ( ). 

The left-hand margin is reserved for chapter and verse numbers, 
and paragraph divisions. 

DIVISION AND MARKING OF THE TEXT 

Paragraphs are divided according to the sense the evangelist seems 
to intend. The opening words of these sense-paragraphs are set out 
to the left of the column. 

A 5-em dash is used to separate material drawn from different 
sources, or different contexts of the same source. Where the sepa- 
ration coincides with that of the sense-paragraphs the numeral only 
is set out and the opening words are set in. 

Bold-face italics are used to indicate changes of wording or sup- 
plementation (except in cases of considerable length) by the evange- 
list (Redactor). His abbreviations and minor changes are left un- 
marked. 

RENDERING 

Translation has been made from the critical Greek text with preced- 
ing translations diligently revised and compared. Verses or clauses 
not found in the best manuscripts are omitted, their absence being 
marked by [ ]. The language of the older versions has been modern- 
ized, but no further than seemed desirable for the purpose of convey- 
ing the original tone and sense. Retention of the second person singu- 
lar of the second personal pronoun seemed advisable for distinction 
from the second person plural. "Jehovah" is used for the Hebrew 
"Yahweh" following the American Revised Version. 

Thanks are due especially to Professor James Moffatt for permis- 
sion to employ in many instances his telling phraseology without 
accepting in other instances his conception of the sense. 

264 



PART III 
TRANSLATION 

THE PREAMBLE: CHH. 1-2 

" Born of the seed of David according to the flesh, miraculously manifested to 
be the Son of God by the resurrection." Rom. 1:8 f. 

i. The Genealogy of Jesus. 

1:1. The pedigree of Jesus Christ, the son of David, R 

the son of Abraham. 

2. Abraham was father to Isaac, Isaac was fa- (I Chron. 1-3 
ther to Jacob, Jacob was father to Judah LXX) 

3. and his brethren, Judah was father to Perez 
and Zerah by Tamar, Perez; was father to 

4. Hezron, Hezron was father to Aram, Aram 
was father to Aminadab, Aminadab was 
father to Nahshon, Nahshon was father to 

5. Salmon, Salmon was father to Boaz by 
Rahab, Boaz was father to Obed by Ruth, 

6. Obed was father to Jesse and Jesse was 
father to David the king. 

David was father to Solomon by the wife of 

7. Uriah, Solomon was father to Rehoboam, 
Rehoboam was father to Abijah, Abijah 

8. was father to Asa, Asa was father to Jehosh- 
aphat, Jehoshaphat was father to Joram, 

9. Joram was father to Uzziah, Uzziah was 
father to Jotham, Jotham was father to 

10. Ahaz, Ahaz was father to Hezekiah, Heze- 
kiah was father to Manasseh, Manasseh 
was father to Amon, Amon was father to 

11. Josiah and Josiah was father to Jechoniah 
and his brethren at the time of the migra- 
tion to Babylon. 

12. And after the migration to Babylon Jechoniah R 

was father to Shealtiel, Shealtielwas father (1 Chr. 3:17 
toZerubbabel, LXX) 

13. Zerubbabel was father to Abiud, Abiud was P 
father to Eliakim, Eliakim was father to (N?) 

14. Azor, Azor was father to Zadok, Zadok was 
father to Achim, Achim was father to Eliud, 

15. Ehud was father to Eleazar, Eleazar was 
father to Matthan, Matthan was father to 

265 



266 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

1:16. Jacob, Jacob was father to Joseph, and 
Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was be- 
trothed, was father to Jesus that is called 
Christ. 

17. Thus all the generations from Abraham to David R 

are fourteen generations, and from David 
to the migration to Babylon are fourteen 
generations, and from the migration to Bab- 
ylon until the Christ fourteen generations. 

ii. His Miraculous Birth. 

18. Now the birth of the Christ was after this P(0?) 

manner. His mother Mary having been 
betrothed to Joseph, before they had come 
together, she was found to be with child 

19. by the holy Spirit. And Joseph her hus- 
band, being a kind man and unwilling to 
disgrace her, resolved to put her away 

20. secretly. But after he had planned this lo, 
an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a 
dream saying, Joseph, thou son of David, 
fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife, for 
that which is begotten in her comes from 

21. the holy Spirit. And she will bear a son and 
thou shalt call his name Jesus (Saviour), for 

22. he will save his people from their sins. All R 
this took place that the word of the Lord 

spoken through the prophet might be ful- 
filled: 

23. Behold the virgin will conceive and bear (Is. 7:14 LXX) 

a son, 
And his name will be called Immanuel, 

24. which is in translation God is with us. So 
when he had risen from sleep Joseph did 
as the angel of the Lord had commanded 

25. him and took his wife home; but he did not 
live with her as a husband until she had 
borne a son. And he gave him the name 
Jesus. 

iii. Astrologers pay him Homage. 

2:1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of N 

Judea in the days of Herod the king, lo, 
there came to Jerusalem from the East as- 

2. trologers, asking, Where is the child that is 
born to be king of the Jews; for we saw his 
star when it rose and we are come to do 

3. him obeisance. But when king Herod heard 



TRANSLATION 267 

this he was disturbed and all Jerusalem with 

2:4. him, and summoning together all the high 

priests and scribes of the people he enquired 

of them where the messiah should be born. 

5. They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for 
thus it is written through the prophet: 

6. And thou, Bethlehem (in the) land of (Mic. 5:2; Hebr.) 

Judah, 
Art far from least among the rulers of 

Judah, 
For from thee shall come forth one to be 

a ruler 
Who shall shepherd my people Israel. 

7. So Herod called the astrologers secretly and 
ascertained from them the time when the 

8. star appeared. Then he sent them to Beth- 
lehem saying, Go and make careful enquiry 
concerning the child, and when you have 
found him report it to me, so that I too may 

9. go and do him obeisance. And the astrol- 
ogers hearkened to the king and went their 
way. And lo, the star which they had seen 
at its rising went in front of them till it 
came and stood over the place where the 

10. child was. And when they saw the star 

11. they rejoiced very greatly. And coming 
into the house they saw the child with his 
mother Mary, and prostrating themselves 
they did him obeisance. Then, opening 
their caskets, they offered him gifts of gold 

12. and frankincense and myrrh. But after they 
had been divinely forewarned in a dream 
not to return to Herod they went back 
to their own country by a different route. 

iv. Flight into Egypt. 

13. And after they were gone lo, an angel of the N 

Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, 
saying, Rise, take with thee the child and 
his mother and flee into Egypt, and stay 
there until I tell thee. For Herod is about 

14. to seek for the child to kill him. So he arose 
and took with him the child and its mother 
by night and got away to Egypt, where he 

15. stayed until the death of Herod. This was 
to fulfil the word spoken by the Lord 
through the prophet: Out of Egypt I 

called my son. (Hos. 11 :1 ;Hebr.) 



268 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

v. Herod Seeks the Child's Life. 

2:16. Then Herod, when he saw that the astrol- N 

ogers had trifled with him, was greatly 
enraged and sent and slew all the male 
children in Bethlehem and its whole neigh- 
borhood from two years of age and under, 
according to the time which he had as- 

17. certained from the astrologers. Then was 
the saying fulfilled which had been uttered 
by the prophet Jeremiah: 

18. A cry was heard in Ramah, (Jer. 31:15, 

weeping and great lamentation; Hebr.) 

Rachel weeping for her children, 
inconsolable because of then- death. 

vi. Settlement in Nazareth. 

19. But when Herod died lo, an angel of the Lord N 

appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 

20. saying, Rise, take with thee the child and 

his mother and go into the land of Israel, (Ex. 4:19) 
for those who sought the child's life are 

21. dead. So he rose, took with him the child 
and its mother and came into the land of 

22. Israel; but when he heard that Archelaus 
was king over Judea in succession to his 
father Herod he was afraid to go thither, 
and receiving divine warning in a dream 

23. he withdrew to the regions of Galilee, and 
came and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, 
so that the saying of the prophets might be 

fulfilled: He shall be called a Nazarene. (Is. 11:1? Hebr.) 



CONCERNING DISCIPLESHIP 269 

BOOK I 
CONCERNING DISCIPLESHIP 

" Be ye therefore imitators of God as beloved sons, and make love your rule of life." 

Eph. 5:1 

DIVISION A. INTRODUCTORY NARRATIVE. CHH. 3-4 

i. John Baptizes the People. 

3:1. And in those days cometh John the Baptist M * 

on the scene preaching in the wilderness of Mk 1:3-6 

2. Judea, saying, Repent; for the kingdom of 

3. heaven is at hand. For this was the man 
spoken of by the prophet Isaiah: 

A voice crying in the wilderness: (Is. 40:3) 

Prepare a highway for the Lord, 
Make straight the paths for him. 

4. The aforesaid John had clothes woven of 
camel's hair, and a leather girdle around 
his loins, and his food was locusts and wild 

5. honey. Then Jerusalem and all Judea 

-and all the region of Jordan (Q, Lk3:3) 



-went forth unto him, and were 



6. baptized by him in the river Jordan confes- 

7. sing their sins. But when he saw Q 

many of the Pharisees and Sadducees com- 
ing to his baptism he said to them, Ye Lk 3:7-9 
brood of vipers, who told you there was 

escape for you from the coming Wrath? 

8. Produce, then, fruit answering to your re- 

9. pentance, instead of presuming to say to 
yourselves, We have Abraham as our 
father. I tell you, God is able to raise up 
children to Abraham out of these stones! 

10 Already the axe is lying at the root of 
the trees; every tree, therefore, that is not 
producing good fruit will be cut down 

11. and cast into the fire. 1 baptize M(S) 

you in water unto repentance, but he Mk l:7f. 
that is coming after me is mightier, whose 

very shoes I am not worthy to take off. 

He will baptize you with the holy Spirit R(M) 

12. and fire. His winnowing fan is Q 

in his hand, and he will clean up his Lk 3:16b-17 
p 1 M = Mk. No occasion appears for the symbol M=Proto-Mt (Streeter). 



270 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

threshing floor; the wheat he will gather 
into his garner, but the chaff he will burn 
up with fire unquenchable. 

ii. Jesus being Baptized is Called of God. 

3:13. Then cometh Jesus on the scene unto John at M 

the Jordan to be baptized by him. Mk 1:9 

14. But (John) sought to prevent him say- (N?) 

ing, I have need to be baptized by thee, 

15. and dost thou come to me! But Jesus said 
to him in reply, So let it be for the present, 
for it is fitting to perform thus every act 
of righteousness. So he allowed him. 

16. And forthwith, after Jesus had been M(S) 

baptized and had come up qut of the water, Mk 1:9-11 
lo, the heavens were opened and he saw the 

Spirit of God coming down like a dove 

17. to rest upon him. And lo, a voice from 
heaven saying: 

This is my Son, the Beloved; my choice (Is. 42:1) 
was fixed upon him. 

iii. He is put to the Test by Satan. 

4:1. Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by Q 

the Spirit to be tempted by the devil. Lk 4:1-13 

2. And when he had fasted forty days and 

3. forty nights he felt hungry thereafter. And 
the tempter came up and said to him, If 
thou art a Son of God tell these stones to 

4. become loaves. But he answered, It is 
written: 

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on (Dt. 8:3, LXX. 
everything that issues from the mouth Sap. 16:25 f.) 
of God. 

5. Then the devil bringeth him into the holy 
city and set him on the pinnacle of the 

6. temple and saith to him, If thou art a Son 
of God, cast thyself down; for it is written: 

He will give his angels charge over thee, (Ps. 90:11 f., 
They will bear thee up on their hands, LXX) 

Lest thou strike thy foot against a stone. 

7. Jesus said to him, It is written again, Thou (Dt. 6:16, LXX) 
shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test. 

8. Again the devil bringeth him to an exceed- 
ing high mountain and showeth him all the 
kingdoms of the world and their splendor, 

9. and said to him, I will give thee all these 
things if thou wilt prostrate thyself and 



CONCERNING DISCIPLESHIP 271 

4:10. pay homage to me. Then Jesus saith to 

him, Begone, Satan, for it is written, Thou (Dt. 6:13, LXX) 
shalt do homage to the Lord thy God, and 
11. him only shalt thou worship. Then the 
devil leaveth him, and lo, angels came and 
ministered to him. 

iv. He Chooses the Darkest Region for his Work. 

12. Now when (Jesus) heard that John had been M 

delivered up he withdrew into Galilee; Mk 1:14 

13. and leaving Nazareth he came and R(N) 

settled at Capernaum, which is beside the 

lake, in the borders of Zebulun and Naph- 

14. tali, so that the word spoken by Isaiah the 
prophet might be fulfilled, who said: 

15. Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, (Is. 8:23-9:1, 
Extending toward the sea, eastward of Hebr.) 

Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles! 

16. The people that sat in darkness saw a 

great light, 
Even to those that sat in the region 

and shadow of death, 
Upon them arose the dawn. 

17. : From that time on Jesus began M 

to preach saying, Repent; for the kingdom Mk 1 :15 
of heaven is at hand. 

v. He Calls four Disciples and Evangelizes Galilee. 

18. And as he was walking beside the sea of M 

Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon called Mk 1:16-20 
Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a 
net in the sea for they were fishermen; 

19. so he saith to them, Come, follow me, and 

20. I will make you fishers of men. And 
straightway they left their nets and fol- 

21. lowed him. And going on thence he saw 
two other brothers, James son of Zebedee 
and John his brother, mending their nets 
in the boat with Zebedee their father. And 

22. he called them, and straightway they left 
the boat and their father and followed him. 

23. So he went about through all Galilee, teach- M 

ing in their synagogues, preaching the Mk 1:39 
gospel of the kingdom, and healing every R (Cf. 9:35) 
kind of malady and disease among the 

24. people. And his fame spread M 

throughout Syria, and men brought to Mk 3:7-12 
him all their sick, afflicted with various 



272 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

diseases and complaints, demoniacs, epilep- 
tics, and paralytics, and he healed them. 
4 :25. And great multitudes followed from Galilee 
and Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea 
and Trans-Jordan. 

DIVISION B. FIRST DISCOURSE. CHH. 6-7 

i. The Exordium. Jesus Blesses and Charges his Followers. 

5:1. When he saw the multitudes he went up to the R(MQ) 

table-land and sat down, and his disciples Mk3:13;Lk 6:20 

2. came up to him and he opened his lips and 
began to teach them, saying: 

3. Blessed are those that are spiritually poor, Q(R) 

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Lk 6:20 f. 

4. Blessed are those that mourn, 

for the consolation is for them. 

6. Blessed are those that hunger and thirst 

for salvation, 
for they shall be satisfied. 

5. 2 Blessed are the meek R 

for they shall inherit the earth. Pss. 37:11 and 

7. Blessed are the merciful 24:3 f. 

for they shall find mercy. 

8. Blessed are the inwardly pure 

for admission to God's presence is for 
them. 

9. Blessed are the peacemakers 

for the name " sons of God " belongs 
to them. 

10. Blessed are they that are persecuted be- 

cause of their righteousness; 
for the kingdom of heaven is theirs. 

11. Blessed are ye when men revile you and Q(R) 

persecute you and say all manner of Lk 6:22 f. 
evil against you on my account falsely. 

12. Rejoice and exult, for great is the reward 

stored up for you in heaven, 
for so did they persecute the prophets 
before you. 

13. Ye are the salt of the earth. But if salt becomes R(Q) 

insipid how can its taste be restored? It is Lk 14:34 f. 

2 The better Mss place verse 5 after verse 6. 



CONCERNING DISCIPLESHIP 273 

no longer fit for anything but to be cast (Mk 9:50) 
into the street and trodden down by men. 

5:14. Ye are the light of the world. R(0) 

A city on top of a hill cannot be hid. (Ox. Log. VII) 

15. Neither do men light a lamp and put Q 

it under the peck-measure; they put it on Lk 11:33 

the lamp-stand and it gives light to all that (Mk 4:21) 

16. are in the house. Let your light so R 

shine before men that they may see your 

good works and glorify your Father which 
is in heaven. 

ii. The New Torah. 

17. Do not imagine that I am come to destroy the R 

Law or the Prophets. I came not to destroy 

18. but to fulfil. For I give you my Q(R) 

word, till heaven and earth pass away not Lk 16:17 
an iota nor a comma shall pass from the 

Law until everything is made valid. 

19. Therefore everyone' who declares even P 

one of these least commands invalid, and (0?) 

teaches men so, shall be called least in the 
kingdom of heaven; but whoever obeys and 

teaches them, he shall be called great in the 

20. kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless R 
your righteousness exceeds that of the 

scribes and Pharisees you shall never enter 
the kingdom of heaven. 

(a) Inward Righteousness 
1. Murder 

21. You have heard how the men of old were com- P(S?) 

manded: Thou shalt do no murder, who- (Dt. 5:18, LXX) 
soever commits murder will be liable to 

22. judgment. But I say to you, Whosoever is 
angry with his brother shall be liable to 
(divine) judgment. (And again), Whoso- 
ever shall say to his brother, " Scoundrel " 
shall be amenable to the Sanhedrin. (But 
I say), Whosoever shall call him " fool " 
will be amenable to the fire of Gehenna. 

23. If, therefore, thou art offering P(0?) 

thy gift before the altar, and there remem- 

berest that thy brother hath a grievance (Cf. Sir. 28:2; 35: 

24. against thee, leave thy gift lying there be- 1-3; and 6:14 f.; 
fore the very altar; go first and be reconciled 18:21-35) 

to thy brother, then come back and offer 



274 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

5:25. thy gift. Hasten to make terms Q 

with thine opponent whilst thou are with Lk 12:57-59 
him on the way to court, lest the opponent 
hand thee over to the judge and the judge to 
26. the sheriff and thou be thrown into jail. I 
give thee my word, thou shalt get no release 
thence till thou have paid the last farthing. 

2. Adultery 

27. You have heard that it was said, Thou shalt P(S?) 

28. not commit adultery. But I tell you, Every (Dt. 5:17, LXX) 
man that looks lustfully upon a woman has 

committed adultery with her already in his 
heart. 

29. And if thy right eye cause thee to sin S 

pluck it out and cast it away; 18:8 f. and Mk 

Better for thee to lose one of thy members 9 :43-47 
than to have thy whole body flung into 
Gehenna. 

30. And if thy right hand cause thee to sin cut 

it off and cast it away: 
Better for thee to lose one of thy members 
than to have thy whole body flung into 
Gehenna. 

31. It used to be said, Whoever divorces his wife R?S? 

32. must give her a certificate. But I say unto (Dt. 24:1) 
you, Any man that repudiates his wife ex- 
cept because of her unchastity makes her 

an adulteress; and whosoever marries a di- 
vorced woman commits adultery. 

3. Perjury 

33. Again you have heard how the men of old were P(S?) 

told, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but (Dt. 5:11; Ps. 

34. shalt fulfil thy vows unto the Lord. But 50:14) 
I say unto you: Utter no oath whatever; nei- 
ther by heaven, for it is the throne of God; 

35. nor by earth, for it is His footstool; nor by 
Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great 

36. King; neither swear by thy head, for thou 
canst not make one hair white or black. 

37. Let what you say be simply Yes or No. 
Whatever goes beyond that springs from 
evil. 

4. Retaliation 

38. You have heard the precept: An eye for an eye P(S?) 

39. and a tooth for a tooth. But I bid you (Dt. 19:21) 



CONCERNING DISCIPLESHIP 275 

-not to resist evil; and if any man 



smites thee on the right cheek, turn to him Q(S) 

5:40. the other also, and if any man would sue Lk 6:29 f. 

41. thee for thy tunic let him have thy cloak as 
well; and if any man would impress thee for 

42. one mile, go with him two; give to him that 
asks of thee, and from him that would bor- 
row of thee turn not away. 

5. Particularism 

43. You have heard the precept: Love thy neighbor, Q 

44. and hate thine enemy. But I say to you, Lk 6:32-36 
Love your enemies, and pray for those that (Lev. 19:18) 

45. persecute you, that you may be sons of 
your Father in heaven; for He makes his 
sun to rise on the evil and the good and 

46. sends rain on the just and the unjust. For 
if you love only those that love you, what 
is there in that to claim reward? Do not 

47. the very tax-collectors the same? And if 
you greet your fellow-countrymen only, 
what is there exceptional in that? Do not 

48. even the Gentiles the same? You, therefore, 
must show kindness without limit, as does 
your heavenly Father. 

iii. Fffial Worship. 

6:1. Beware of practicing your acts of piety in the R 

sight of men to gain their approbation; 
otherwise you can claim no reward from 

2. your Father in heaven. So when P 

thou givest alms, sound not a trumpet be- (S?) 

fore thee, as do the hypocrites in their syna- 
gogues and on the streets, to win praise from 

men. I give you my word, they have all 

3. there is to their reward. But when thou art 
giving alms let not thy left hand know what 

4. thy right hand is doing; that thine almsgiv- 
ing may be in secret, and thy reward shall be 
from thy Father that seeth in secret. 

5. Again when you pray, you shall not be like 
the hypocrites. For they love to stand and 
pray in the synagogues and on the street- 
corners, to be observed of men. I give you 
my word, they get all there is to their re- 
6. ward. But when thou prayest enter thy 
private room and shut the door and pray to 



276 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

thy Father that is in secret; and thy Father 
that seeth in secret shall reward thee. 

6:7. And when you pray let it not be by rote, like R 

the heathen, for they think they will be 

8. heard for their abundance of words. Be not 
like them, for your Father knoweth the 
things whereof you have need before you 

9. ask Him. Pray ye, then, after this manner: 

Our Father in heaven, Thy name be sancti- Q 

fied. Lk 11:2-4 

10. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on 

earth as in heaven. 

11. Give us today our daily bread, 

12. And forgive us our debts as we have for- 

given our debtors, 

13. And bring us not into trial, but deliver 

us from evil. 

14. For if you forgive men their trespasses your R 

15. heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you 
do not forgive men neither will your Father 
forgive your trespasses. 

16. And when you fast be not disfigured like the P 

hypocrites; for they affect a look of dis- (S?) 

tress to make a show of their fasting before 
men. I give you my word they get all there 

17. is to their reward. But when thou art fast- 

18. ing, anoint thy head and bathe thy face, that 
thou mayst not seem to men to be fasting, 
but to thy Father who is in secret, and thy 
Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. 

iv. Treasure in Heaven. 

19. Lay up for yourselves no treasures upon earth, Q 

where moth and rust corrode, and where Lk 12:33 f. 

20. thieves break in and steal; but lay up treas- 
ures for yourselves in heaven, where neither 
moth nor rust corrode, and where thieves 

21. do not break in and steal. For where your 
treasure is there will your heart be also. 

22. The lamp of the body is the eye: so Q 

if thine eye be single (generous), thy whole Lk 11:34 f. 

23. body will be illumined; but if thine eye be 
evil thy whole body will be darkened. And 
if the light itself in thee be dark how great is 

24. the darkness! No one can serve Q 

two masters; for either he will hate one and Lk 16:13 
love the other, or else he will stand by one 

and despise the other. Ye cannot serve 



CONCERNING DISCIPLESHIP 277 

6:25. God and Mammon. Therefore I Q 

bid you, Be not anxious for your living, Lk 12:22-31 
what ye are to eat or drink, or for your 

26. body as to what ye shall put on. Con- 
sider the birds of the sky, how they neither 
sow nor reap and gather not into barns, and 
your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are 

27. you not of more value than they? And 
which of you by being anxious can add one 

28. span to his age (stature) ? And why are ye 
anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies 
of the field, how they grow: they toil not, 

29. nor do they spin. Yet I tell you that even 
Solomon in all his splendor was not robed 

30. like one of these. Now if God doth so clothe 
the grass of the field, which blooms today 
and tomorrow is flung into the oven, will He 
not much more clothe you, ye half-believers! 

31. Therefore be not anxious, crying, What shall 
we have to eat? or, What shall we have to 

32. drink? or How shall we get clothing? For 
all these things the heathen seek after; for 
your heavenly Father knoweth that you 

33. need all these things. But seek ye first His 
kingdom and His approbation and all these 
things will be supplied to you over and 

34. above. Therefore be not anx- R 

ious for the morrow, for the morrow will 

provide its own anxiety. " The day's own (0?) 

trouble is enough for the day." 

v. Self-judgment. 

7:1. Judge not, that you may not be judged your- Q 

2. selves; for the judgment you apply will Lk 6:37-42 
be applied to you, and the standard you use 

for measurement will be used in your own 

3. case. Why note the splinter in thy brother's 
eye and take no heed to the plank in thine 

4. own eye? How canst thou say to thy 
brother, Let me remove the splinter from 
thine eye, and lo, there is a plank in thine 

5. own. Thou hypocrite, remove first the plank 
from thine own eye, and then thou wilt 
have clear vision to remove the splinter from 

6. thy brother's eye. Give not holy 

flesh to the dogs, lest they turn their fangs P 

against you, and cast not your pearls before (0.) 

swine, lest they trample them under foot. 



278 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

vi. Answer to Prayer. Colophon. 

7:7. Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, Q 

knock and the door will be opened to you. Lk 11:9-13 

8. For -everyone that asketh receiveth, and 
he that seeketh findeth and to him that 

9. knocketh the door is opened. Nay, what 
man is there of you who when asked by his 

10. son for a loaf will give him a stone? Or if he 

11. ask for a fish will he give him a serpent? So, 
then, if you, evil though you be, know how 
to give good gifts to your children, how 
much more will your Father in heaven give 
good things to them that ask Him? 

12. All things therefore, whatsoever ye Q 

would that men should do to you, do ye Lk 6:31 
likewise to them; for that is the substance 

of Law and Prophets. (R) 

vii. False and True Teaching. 

13. Enter ye in through the narrow gate; Q Lk 13:23 f. 

for wide and spacious is the way that lead- (R) 

eth to destruction, and many are they that 
14. enter through it. For narrow and straitened 

is the way that leadeth into life, and few are 

they that find it. 
15. Beware of the false prophets. They R 

come to you in the garb of sheep but (Acts 20:29 f.) 

16. inwardly they are voracious wolves. But ye 

may know them by their fruits. Do men Q 

17. gather grapes of thorns or figs from thistles? Lk 6:43 f. 
So every tree that is good bears sound fruits, 

18. but the rotten tree bears bad fruits. A good (Mt 12:33) 
tree cannot bear bad fruits nor can a rotten 

19. tree bear sound fruits. Every 

tree that does not produce good fruit is Q 

cut down and cast into the fire. Mt 3:10 = Lk 3:9 

20. So, then, you may know them by their 

21. fruits. Not everyone that says to R(Q) 

me, Lord, Lord! will have admission to the Lk 6:46-49 
kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the 

will of my Father in heaven. 

22. Many will say to me in that Day: Lord, Q 
Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, did Lk 13:26 f. 
we not exorcise in thy name, and in thy 

23. name do many miracles? Then will / de- 
clare to them: I never knew you; begone (Ps. 6:8) 
from my presence, ye workers of lawless- 
ness. 



CONCERNING DISCIPLESHIP 279 

7:24. Everyone, therefore, that hearkens Q 

to these words of mine and acts upon Lk 6:47-49 
them may be compared to a prudent 
man who built his house upon the ledge. 

25. And the rain came down and the floods 
rose and the winds blew and beat upon 
that house, and it fell not, for it was 

26. founded upon rock. And everyone that 
hearkens to these words of mine and does 
not act upon them may be compared to a 
foolish man that built his house upon the 

27. sand. And the rain came down and the 
floods rose and the winds blew and beat 
upon that house, and it fell, and great was 
the fall thereof. 

28. AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN JESUS HAD FINISHED R(M) 

THESE SAYINGS THE CROWDS WERE (Mk 1 :22) 

29. ASTONISHED AT HIS TEACHING; FOR HIS 
TEACHING WAS AS OF ONE THAT HAS AU- 
THORITY AND NOT LIKE THAT OF THEIR 
SCRIBES. 



280 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

BOOK II 
CONCERNING APOSTLESHIP 

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you. II Cor. 12:12. 
Suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist. II Tim. 4:5. 

DIVISION A. INTRODUCTORY NARRATIVE. CHH. 8-9 

i. Three Faith-healings. 

8:1. Now when he had come down from the table- 
land great crowds followed him. 

2. And lo, a leper came and did him obeisance, M(S?) 
saying, Sir, if thou only choose thou canst Mk 1:40-45 

3. make me clean. And he stretched forth his 
hand and touched him, saying, I will; be 
thou cleansed. And immediately his leprosy 

4. was cleansed. And Jesus saith to him, See 
thou tell no man; but go, show thyself to 
the priest and offer the gift that Moses com- 
manded as evidence for them. 

5. And when he had entered Capernaum a cen- Q 

6. turion came up and entreated him, say- Lk 7:1-10 
ing, My servant is lying at home paralyzed, 

7. in terrible distress. He saith to him, I will 

8. come and heal him. The centurion an- 
swered, Sir, I am not worthy that thou 
shouldst come under my roof; only say the 

9. word, and my servant will be cured. For I 
myself am a man under authority, and I 
have soldiers under me. To one I say, Go, 
and he goes, to another Come, and he 
comes, and to my slave, Do this, and he does 

10. it. And when Jesus heard that he marvelled, 
and said to those that were following, I give 
you my word, Nowhere in Israel have I 

11. found such faith as this. 1 tell Q 

you many will come from east and west Lk 13:28-30 
and sit down at the feast beside Abraham, 

Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 
while the sons of the kingdom are expelled 

12. into the darkness outside. In that place 
there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

13. And Jesus said to the centurion, R 

Go; be it unto thee according to thy faith. 

And the servant was cured that very hour. 



CONCERNING APOSTLESHIP 281 

8:14. And when Jesus was come into Peter's house M 

he saw his wife's mother lying ill with fever. Mk 1 :29-34 

15. And he took her by the hand and the fever 
left her, so that she rose and ministered to 

16. him. And when evening came they brought 
him many demoniacs, and he cast out the 
spirits with a word and healed all that were 

17. sick that the word spoken by R 

the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: He N 

took away our sicknesses and removed our (Is. 53:4, Hbr.) 
diseases. 

ii. Exorcisms and Highly Works. 

18. And when Jesus saw great crowds around him R 

he gave orders to depart to the other side. 

19. And a certain scribe came up Q 

and said to him, Teacher, I will follow thee Lk 9:57-60 

20. whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus saith 
to him, The foxes have holes, and the birds 
of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man 

21. hath not a place to lay his head. Another, 
one of the disciples, said to him, Sir let me 

22. first go home and bury my father. But he 
saith to him, Follow me, and leave the dead 
to bury their own dead. 

23. Then he embarked in the boat, and his dis- M 

24. ciples followed him. And a great storm Mk 4:35-41 
arose on the lake so that the boat was being 
swamped by the waves; but he was sleeping. 

25. And they came and awakened him, saying, 

26. Help, Master, we are perishing! And he 
saith to them, Why are ye frightened, ye 
half-believers? Then he arose and rebuked 
the wind and the sea, and a great calm en- 

27. sued. But the men were astonished, saying, 
What sort of man is this, that even the 
winds and sea obey him? 

28. And when he reached the other side, the dis- M 

trict of the Gadarenes, two demoniacs Mk 5:1-20 
met him, coming forth from the tombs; so 
violent were they that no one could pass 

29. that way. And lo, they cried out saying, 
Thou Son of God, what business hast thou 
with us? Art thou come hither before the 

30. time to torment us? Now in the distance 

31. there was a herd of many swine feeding. So 
the demons entreated him, saying, If thou 
intendest to drive us out send us into that 



282 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

8:32. herd of swine. He answered, Go. So they 
came out and entered into the swine, and lo, 
the whole herd plunged down the declivity 

33. into the sea and perished in the water. But 
the herdsmen fled, and entering the city 
they reported the whole affair and what had 

34. happened to the demoniacs. And lo, the 
whole city came out to meet Jesus; and 
when they saw him they besought him to 
leave their country. 

9:1. So he embarked in the boat and crossing over M 

2. came to his own city. And lo, they brought Mk 2:1-12 
to him a paralytic lying on a pallet. And 

when Jesus saw their faith he said to the 
paralytic, Courage, my son, thy sins are 

3. forgiven. And lo, some of the scribes said 
to themselves, This man speaks blasphemy! 

4. Jesus perceived what they were thinking 
and said, Why do ye harbor evil thoughts in 

5. your minds? Which is easier, to say, Thy 
sins are forgiven; or to say, Rise and walk? 

6. But in order that you may know that the 
Son of Man has authority on earth to for- 
give sins he then said to the paralytic, 

7. Rise, take up thy pallet and go home. And 

8. he got up and went off home. And the 
crowds that saw it were awestruck and gave 
glory to God for having given such author- 
ity to men. 

iii. Vocations and Wonders. 

9. And as Jesus passed on from thence he saw a M 

man named Matthew sitting at the tax- Mk 2:13-17 
office, and said to him, Follow me; and he 

10. rose up and followed him. And as he was 
seated at table in his house lo, many tax- 
collectors and sinners took places along 

11. with Jesus and his disciples. And when the 
Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, 
Why doth your teacher eat with the tax- 

12. collectors and sinners? But when he heard 
it he said, They that are well have no need 

13. of a physician, but those who are sick. 

Go learn what the scripture means: (R) 

I desire mercy rather than sacrifice. (Hos. 6:6, LXX) 

For I did not come to invite just men 

but sinners. 
14. Then the disciples of John came up to him M 



CONCERNING APOSTLESHIP 283 

saying, Why do we and the Pharisees keep Mk 2:18-22 
9:15. fasts, but thy disciples do not fast? And 
Jesus said to them, Can guests at a wedding 
mourn while the bridegroom is among them? 
A tune will come when the bridegroom will 
be taken from them, and then they will fast. 

16. No one sews a piece of unfulled cloth on an 
old garment, for the patch tears away from 
the garment and the rent becomes worse. 

17. Neither do they put new wine into old 
wine-skins, otherwise the wine-skins burst; 
the wine is spilt and the wine-skins are 
ruined. They put new wine into new wine- 
skins and so both are kept safe. 

18. As he was saying this to them lo, an official M 

came in and did him obeisance, saying, My Mk 5:21-43 
daughter has just died; but come and lay 
thy hand upon her and she will come to life. 
19. And Jesus rose up and followed him, to- 
gether with his disciples. 

20. And lo, a. woman who had had a hemorrhage 
for twelve years came up behind and 
touched the tassel of his robe; for she said 

21. to herself, If I only touch his robe I shall be 

22. healed. But Jesus turned around, and when 
he saw her he said, Courage, my daughter, 
thy faith hath healed thee. And the woman 
was cured from that hour. 

23. Now when Jesus came to the official's house 
and saw the flute-players and the crowd 

24. making a din, he said, Give place, the little 
girl is not dead but asleep. And they 

25. laughed at him. But when the crowd had 
been put forth he went in and took her by 
the hand, and the little girl rose up. 

26. And the fame of this spread all over 

that land. 

27. And as Jesus was passing along from thence R(M) 

two blind men followed him, crying out: Mk 8:22-26; 10: 

28. Have pity on us, thou Son of David. And 47; Mt 12:22-24 
when he had come into the house the blind (S?) 

men came up to him; and Jesus saith unto 
them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? 

29. They say to him, Yes, sir. Then he touched 

their eyes, saying, According to your faith (8:13) 

30. be it unto you. And their eyes were opened. 

And Jesus charged them sternly, saying, (Mk 1:43-45) 

31. See that no one knows of this. But they 



284 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

went out and spread his fame all over that 
country. 
9:32. And as they went out, lo, there was brought R(M) 

to him a deaf-mute possessed by a demon. Mk 7:31-37; Mt 
33. And when the demon had been cast out the 12:22-24 
deaf-mute began to speak. And the crowds (S?) 

were amazed, saying, Such a thing was 
never seen in Israel! [34] 

35. And Jesus made a circuit of all the cities and M 

villages, teaching in their synagogues, Mk 6:6 f. 
preaching the gospel of the kingdom and (R Mt 4:23) 
healing every disease and every sickness. 

DIVISION B. THE DISCOURSE, 9:36-10:42 

i. Appointment and Instructions of the Twelve. 

9:36. Now when (Jesus) saw the crowds he was moved M 

with pity for them, for they were harassed Mk 6:34 
and forlorn, like sheep that have no shep- 

37. herd. Then said he to his dis- Q, Lk 10:2 

ciples, The harvest is plentiful but the 

38. laborers are few; entreat, therefore, the 
Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers 

10:1. into His harvest-field. And sum- (Mk 6:7) 

moning his twelve disciples he gave them 
authority over unclean spirits to cast them 
out, and to heal every disease and every (4:23:9:35) 
sickness. 

2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: Mk 3:14-19 
Simon called Peter and Andrew his brother, 
And James son of Zebedee and John his 
brother, 

3. Philip and Bartholomew, 

Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector (N?) 

James son of Alphaeus and Lebbaeus, 

4. Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who 

betrayed him. 
5. These twelve Jesus sent forth, giving them the R 

following instructions: Go not 

among the Gentiles, and enter no city of (N?) 

6. the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost (15:24) 
sheep of the house of Israel. 

7. And as you go, preach, saying, The king- (Q) 

8. dom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, Lk 10:9 
raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out 
demons. Freely ye received, freely give. 

9. Get you neither gold nor silver M(S) 

10. nor copper in your girdles, nor a wallet for Mk 6:8-11 



CONCERNING APOSTLESHIP 285 

the road, nor an extra garment, nor san- 
dals, nor a staff. For " the workman de- (R) 

10:11. serves his food." Whatever city I Tim. 5:18 

or village ye enter, find out who in it is Q 

worthy, and stay with him till you leave Lk 10:5-12 

12. the place. When you enter the house utter 
a blessing on it, and if the household be 

13. worthy let the peace you invoke come upon 
it, but if it be not worthy let your peace 

14. return upon yourselves. Whoever will not 
receive you nor listen to your message, as 
you leave that house or city shake off the 

15. very dust from your feet. I give R 

you my word, in the day of judgment it (ll:24MLk 10: 
will be more bearable for Sodom and Go- 12) 

morrha than for that city. 

ii. Encouragement to Meet Persecutions. 

16. Lo, I send you forth as sheep among wolves, Q 

therefore be wise as serpents LklO:3P(0?) 

17. and guileless as doves. Beware M 

of men, for they will hand you over to san- Mk 13:9-13 
hedrins and scourge you in their synagogues, 

18. and you will be haled before governors and 
kings for my sake, that the witness may be 
borne to them and to the Gentiles. 

19. And when they bring you up for trial (Q) 

be not anxious as to what or how you shall Lk 12:11 f. 
speak, for what you are to say will be given 

20. you at the time. For it is not you that are 
the speakers, the Spirit of your Father 
will be speaking through you. 

21. Brother will betray brother to death and M 
fathers their children, children will rise up (Mic. 7:6) 
against parents and will put them to death, 

22. and ye will be hated by all men on account 
of my name. But he will be saved who 

23. holds out to the end. And when P 

they persecute you in one city, flee to the (N?0?) 

next; for I give you my word, you will not 

have gone the rounds of the cities of Israel 
before the Son of Man will have come. 
24. A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave Q 

25. above his master; enough for the disciple (Lk 6:40) 
to fare like his teacher and the slave like 

his master. // they have called R 

the Master of the House Beelzebul [i.e. (12:24) 

Master of the (heavenly) house] how much 



286 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

more will they miscall those of his house- 
hold. 

10:26. Therefore have no fear of them. For there Q 

is nothing covered up but shall be disclosed, Lk 12:2-9 

27. or hid that shall not be known. What I tell 
you in the darkness utter ye in the light, 
and what is whispered in your ear proclaim 

28. from the housetop. And fear not those 
that kill the body but cannot kill the soul, 
but rather fear Him who can destroy both 

29. soul and body in Gehenna. Are not two 
sparrows sold for a farthing? Yet not one 
of them will fall to the ground without 

30. leave from your Father; and as for you the (L, Lk 21:18) 
very hairs of your head are all numbered. 

31. Therefore fear not, ye are of more value 

32. than many sparrows. Whosoever, then, (S, Mk 8:38) 
acknowledges me before men, him will I 
acknowledge before my Father in heaven; 

33. and whoso disowns me before men, him 
will I disown before my Father in heaven. 

34. Do not imagine that I came to bring Q 

peace on earth; I came not to bring peace, Lk 12:51-53 

35. but a sword; for I came to set a man (S, Mk 13:12;. 
against his father, a daughter against her Mic. 7:6) 
mother and a daughter-in-law against her 

36. mother-in-law, yea, a man's enemies will be 

the members of his own household. Q(L?) 

37. He that loves father or mother more Lk 14:26 f. 

than me is not worthy of me, and he that 

loves son or daughter more than me is not 

38. worthy of me. And he that will not take up 
his own cross and follow after me is not 

39. worthy of me. He that saves his Q 

life will lose it, and he that loses his life for Lk 17:33 

my sake will find it. (S, Mt 16:25=Mk 

8:35 = Lk 9:24) 

iii. The Reward for Kindly Reception. 

40. He that receives you receives me, and he that M(S) 

receives me receives Him that sent me Mk 9:37, 41; Lk 

41. " He that receives a prophet be- 10:16 

cause he is a prophet will receive a prophet's P(0?) 

reward, and he that receives a righteous 

man because he is a righteous man will re- 
ceive a righteous man's reward." 

42. And whoever gives one of these little ones M 
even a cup of cold water to drink because 



CONCERNING APOSTLESHIP 287 

he is a disciple, I give you my word he shall 
not lose his reward. 

11:1. AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN JESUS HAD FIN- R 

ISHED GIVING DIRECTION TO HIS TWELVE 
DISCIPLES HE DEPARTED THENCE TO TEACH 
AND TO PREACH IN THEIR CITIES. 



288 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

BOOK III 
CONCERNING THE HIDING OF THE REVELATION 

" To Israel He saith ' All the day long did I spread out my hands to a disobedient 
and gainsaying people.' " " The hidden mystery is now manifested." Rom. 
10:21; 16:25. 

DIVISION A. ISRAEL IS STUMBLED. CHH. 11-12 

i. Jesus and John. 

11:2. Now when John heard in prison about the Q 

doings of the Christ, he sent by his disciples Lk 7:18-35 

3. to ask him, Art thou the Coming One, or 

4. are we to look for another? And Jesus gave 
them answer, Go, report to John what ye 

5. hear and see. The blind see, the lame walk, (Is. 29:18 f.; 35: 
lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead 5 f.; 61:1) 
are raised to life, and the poor have glad 

6. tidings proclaimed to them. Also, Blessed 
is he who is not repelled by anything 
in me. 

7. When the messengers had taken their leave 
Jesus proceeded to address the crowds con- 
cerning John: What went ye out into the 
wilderness to gaze at? A reed swayed by 

8. the wind? But why did you go forth? To 
see a man wearing luxurious clothes? Lo, 
the wearers of luxurious clothes are in royal 

9. palaces. But why did you go forth? To see 
a prophet? Yea, I tell you, and far more 

10. than a prophet. This is he of whom it stands 

written: Lo, I send my messenger before (Mai. 3:1 and Ex. 
thy face, who shall prepare thy way before 23:20 Hebr.) 

11. thee. I give you my word, no greater man 
has arisen among the sons of women than 
John the Baptist, yet he that is but little 
in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 

12. But from the days of John the Q 

Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven Lk 16:16 
suffers violence and violent men make booty 

13. of it. For all the prophets and the Law 

14. prophesied until John, and if ye are willing R 
to accept it he is the Elijah that was to (Mk 9:13) 

come. He that hath ears, let M(S) 

him hearken. Mk 4:9, 23 



CONCERNING THE HIDING OF THE REVELATION 289 

11:16. But to what shall I compare this generation? Q 

They are like children sitting in the market Lk 7:31-35 

17. place, who call out to their playmates, We 
played the pipes to you and you would not 
dance, we sang dirges and you would not 

18. beat your breasts. For John came neither 
eating nor drinking, and men say, He has a 

19. demon. The Son of Man came eating and 
drinking, and they say, Lo, a glutton and a 
hard-drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and 
sinners. Nevertheless wisdom is justified by 
her works. 

ii. Judgment on the Unrepentant. 

20. Then he proceeded to upbraid the cities in R 

which most of his miracles had been done, 

21. because they had not repented: Woe to thee Q 
Chorazin, woe to thee Bethsaida; for if the Lk 10:13-15 
miracles had been done in Tyre and Sidon 

that were wrought among you, they would 
have repented long ago in sackcloth and 

22. ashes. But I give you my word, it will be 
more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the day 

23. of judgment than for you. And thou, Caper- (Is. 14:13-15) 
naum, shalt thou be " exalted to heaven? 

Thou shalt be thrust down to Hades!" 

For if the miracles had been R 

done in Sodom which were wrought in (10:15) 

24. thee it would have stood to this day. But 
I tell you it will be more bearable in the 
day of judgment for the land of Sodom 
than for thee. 

25. On that occasion Jesus made this utterance: 

I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and Q 

earth, Lk 10:21 f. 

That thou didst hide these things from 

the wise and understanding, 
And didst reveal them to the simple- 
minded. 

26. Yea, Father, for such was thy divine 

decree. 

27. All truth has been revealed to me by my 

Father; 
And no one knows the Son except the 

Father, 
Nor does any know the Father except 

the Son, 



290 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

And he to whom the Son chooses to re- 
veal Him. 

11:28. Come to me, all ye that toil and are bur- R 

dened, (Ecclus. 51:23- 
And I will give you rest. 27) 

29. Take my yoke upon you and learn from 

me, 

For I am humble and gentle of spirit, 
And ye will find rest for your souls; 

30. For my yoke is kindly and my burden light. 

iii. Pharisaic Opposition. 

12:1. At that time Jesus walked one sabbath day M 

through the wheatfields, and his disciples, Mk 2:23-28 
being hungry, began to pluck the heads of 

2. wheat and to eat. And when the Pharisees 
saw it they said to him, Lo, thy disciples 
are doing what is unlawful to be done on 

3. the sabbath. But he said to them, Have ye (I Sam. 21 :2-6) 
not read what David did when he and his 

4. men were hungry, how he went into the 
house of God, and they ate the sacrificial 
loaves, which it was unlawful for him or his 
men or any except the priests alone to 

5. eat? Or have ye not read in the R 

Law how the priests in the temple profane 

6. the sabbath and incur no guilt? I tell you (Lk 11:31 f., Q) 
a greater matter than the temple is here 

7. at issue. And if you had known what this 
scripture means, I care more for mercy (Hos. 6:6) 
than for sacrifice, you would not have 

8. condemned the innocent. For the M 

Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath. 

9. And passing on thence he came into their syna- M 

10. gogue. And lo, there was a man there with Mk 3:1-6 
a withered hand, so in order to get a charge 

against him they put to him the question, 
Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath? 

11. And he said to them, What man is Q 

there among you who, if he have a single (Lk 14:3, 5) 
sheep and it fall into a pit on the sabbath, 

12. will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Well, 
then, of how much more value is a man 
than a sheep? So that it is lawful to do good 

13. on the sabbath. Then he saith M 

to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And 

he stretched it forth and it was restored 



CONCERNING THE HIDING OF THE REVELATION 291 

12:14. sound like the other. But the Pharisees 
went out and conspired against him to 
destroy him. 
15. And when Jesus knew of it he withdrew from M 

thence; and many followed him. And he Mk 3:7-12; cf. 
healed them all, and charged them not Mt 4:24 f. 

17. to make him known that the 

word spoken by Isaiah the prophet might 
be fulfilled: 

18. Behold my servant whom I chose, N 

My beloved, on whom my soul fixed her (Is. 42:l-3,Hebr.) 

choice. 

I will put my Spirit upon him, 
And he will proclaim religion to the Gen- 
tiles. 

19. He will not wrangle nor cry out, 

Nor will any hear his voice in the streets. 

20. The bruised reed he will not break, 
Nor quench the smouldering lampwick, 
Till he carries religion to victory. 

21. And the Gentiles will hope in his name. (Is. 42:4b LXX) 

iv. Blasphemy of the Scribes. 

22. Then there was brought to him a demoniac, Q 

blind and deaf-mute, and he healed him, so Lk 11:14-16; cf. 

23. that the deaf-mute spoke and saw. And the Mt 9:32 f. 
crowds were amazed and said, Can this be 

24. the Son of David? But when the Pharisees 
heard of it they said, This fellow only casts 
out demons by Beelzebul the prince of 

25. the demons. And knowing their Q 

thoughts he said to them: Any kingdom Lk 11:17-23 
divided against itself meets destruction, 

and any city or household divided against 

26. itself cannot stand. And if Satan be cast- 
ing out Satan he is divided against him- 
self; how, then, can his kingdom stand? 

27. Besides, if I exorcise by Beelzebul, by whom 
do your sons exorcise? Therefore they will 

28. be your judges. But if my casting out of 
demons is by the Spirit of God, then the 
dominion of God has overtaken you un- 

29. awares. Why, how can anyone enter the (Is. 49:24-26) 
house of the Mighty and seize his belongings 

unless he have first bound the Mighty one? 

30. Then he will plunder his house. Whoever is 
not with me is against me, and he who does 

31. not gather with me scatters. For M(S) 



292 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

this reason I tell you, any sin or blasphemy 

will be forgiven men, but blasphemy against Mk 3:28 

the Spirit will not be forgiven. 

12:32. And whosoever speaks a word against the Q 

Son of Man it will be forgiven him, but Lk 12:10 
whosoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, (Mk 3:29) 
it will not be forgiven him, whether in this 
world or the world to come. 

33. Either make the tree sound and its fruit R(Q) 
sound, or make the tree rotten and its fruit (Lk 6:43-45M 
rotten; for the tree is known by its fruit. Mt 7:16-20) 

34. Ye brood of vipers, how can ye (3:7; 23:33) 

speak good, evil as ye are; for " the mouth (0?) 

utters what the heart is full of." 

35. The good man out of his good store brings 
out good, and the evil man out of his evil 

36. store brings out evil. / give you R 

my word, men shall give account in the 

day of judgment for every idle word that 

37. they speak, for " by thy words shall thou (0?) 
be justified, and by thy words shalt thou 

be condemned" 

v. The Demand for a Sign. 

38. Then some of the scribes and Phari- Q 

sees made answer to him, Teacher, we Lk 11:16, 29-32 
desire to see a sign from thee. But he 

39. answered them: It is an evil and disloyal 
generation that craves a sign, but no 
sign will be given it but the sign of the 

40. prophet Jonah; for just as Jonah was three R 

days and three nights in the whale's belly, (Cf. Mk 8:20; Lk 
so will the Son of Man be three days and 11:29; Mt 16:4) 

41. three nights in the heart of the earth. At 
the day of judgment the men of Nineveh will 
rise up together with this generation and 
show its condemnation. For they repented 
at the preaching of Jonah, and lo, a greater 
matter than (the preaching of) Jonah is 

42. here at issue. The queen of the South will 
rise up at the judgment together with this 
generation and show its condemnation; for 
she came from the ends of the earth to hear 
the wisdom of Solomon, and lo, a greater 
matter than (the wisdom of) Solomon is 
here concerned. 

43. Whenever the unclean spirit is cast out of a Q 

man it wanders through desert places seek- Lk 11:24-26 



CONCERNING THE HIDING OF THE REVELATION 293 

12:44. ing a resting-place and finds none. Then it 
says, I will return to ray abode whence I 
came forth. And when it comes it finds the 
45. house vacant, swept, and set in order. Then 
it goes and fetches seven other spirits worse 
than itself; and they go in and dwell there. 
So the last state of that man becomes worse 
than the first. So will it be with this evil 
generation. 

46. While he was still addressing the crowds lo, M(S) 

his mother and his brethren were stand- Mk 3:31-35 
ing outside, seeking opportunity to speak (S, Lk 11:27 f.) 

48. with him. [47] But he replied to the man 
who told him this, Who is my mother? and 

49. who are my brethren? And he stretched 
forth his hand toward his disciples and said, 

50. Behold my mother and my brethren! Who- 
ever does the will of my Father in heaven, 
he is my brother and sister and mother. 

DIVISION B. TEACHING IN PARABLES, 13:1-63 

i. Parables of the Kingdom. 

13:1. That same day Jesus left the house and seated M 

2. himself by the seaside; and as great crowds Mk 4:1-9 
gathered to him he entered a boat and sat 

down while all the crowd stood on the 

3. beach. And he made to them a discourse 
at length in parables saying, 

4. Lo, the sower went forth to sow, and as he M 

sowed some seed fell on the roadside and 

5. the birds came and devoured it. Other seeds 
fell on stony soil, where they had not much 
earth, and sprouted at once because they 

6. had no depth of soil; but when the sun rose 
high they were scorched and withered away 

7. for lack of root. Others fell among thorns, 
and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 

8. Others fell on good soil and produced a 
crop, some bearing a hundredfold, some 

9. sixty, some thirtyfold. He that has ears let 
him hearken. 

10. Then the disciples came up and said to him, M 

Why dost thou speak to them in parables? 

11. But he replied, Because it is to you that it 
is granted to know the revelation of the 
kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not 

12. granted. For whosoever hath, (S?) 



294 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

to him shall be given in superabundance, (Mk 4:25; Mt 
but from him that hath not even that which 25:29) 

he hath shall be taken away. 

13:13. For this reason I speak to them in parables, 
because while looking they see not, and 
while hearing they hear not nor under- 

14. stand. In their case the prophecy R(M) 

of Isaiah is being fulfilled: (Is. 6:9 f., LXX) 

15. You will hear and hear but never under- 

stand, 

You will gaze and gaze but never per- 
ceive. 

16. For the heart of this people is dense. 
Their hearing has become dull, 
And their eyes they have closed; 
That they may not see with their eyes 
Or hear with their ears, 

Or understand with their minds, 

And turn back, that I might heal them. 

17. But as for you, Blessed are your Q 

eyes, for they see, and your ears for they Lk 10:23 f. 
hear. I give you my word, Many prophets 

and just men have longed to see the sights 
that you see, but saw them not, and to 
hear the words that you hear, but heard 
them not. 
18. Hearken ye, then, to the parable of the M 

19. Sower. When anyone hears the word of the Mk 4:13-20 
kingdom and fails to understand it, the 

Evil one comes and snatches away what 
has been sown in his heart. Such is the man 

20. who is sown by the roadside. As for him that 
is sown on stony ground, that is the man 
who hears the word and receives it at once 

21. with joy, but having no root in himself he 
does not hold out. When tribulation comes 
or persecution on account of the word at 

22. once he falls away. As for him who is sown 
among thorns, that is the man who hearkens 
to the word, but the cares of the world and 
the delusion of riches stifle the word and it 

23. becomes unfruitful. As for him who is sown 
on good soil, that is the man who hears the 
word and understands it. This man brings 
forth fruit, now a hundred, now sixty, now 
thirtyfold. 

24. He set before them another parable, saying: M(R) 

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to Mk 4:26-29 



CONCERNING THE HIDING OF THE REVELATION 295 

13:25. a man who sowed good seed in his field, but 
while men slept his enemy came and made 
a new sowing of weeds among the wheat 

26. and departed. When the blade sprouted 
and bore fruit then appeared the weeds also. 

27. So the servants of the owner came and 
asked him, Sir, didst thou not sow good 
seed in thy field? Whence, then, does it 

28. contain weeds? But he said to them, An 
enemy has done this. And the servants say 
to him, Dost thou wish us, then, to go and 

29. weed them out? No, said he, lest in gather- 
ing out the weeds you root up the wheat 

30. together with them. Let both grow to- 
gether until harvest and at harvest time / 
will tell the reapers, Gather out first the 

weeds and tie them in bundles to be burnt, (3:12) 

but gather the wheat into my granary. 

31. He set before them another parable, saying: M 

The kingdom of heaven may be compared 
to a grain of mustard-seed which a man 
32. took and sowed in his field. It is smaller 
than any other seed, but when it gets its 
growth it is larger than the plants and be- 
comes a tree, so that the birds of the sky 
come and nest in its branches. 

33. He told them another parable: The Q 

kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a Lk 13:20f. 
woman took and buried in three measures 

of flour, till all of it was leavened. 

34. Jesus said all this to the crowds in parables, M 

and told them nothing without a parable, Mk 4:33 f. 
35. that the word spoken by Isaiah the prophet R(N) 

might be fulfilled, 

I will open my mouth in parables, (Ps. 78:2, Hebr.) 

I will utter things hid since the founda- 
tion of the world. 

ii. Private Exposition. 

36. Then he left the crowds and came indoors. R 

And his disciples came up to him saying, 
Explain to us the parable of the weeds in 

37. the field. He answered, The sower of the 

38. good seed is the Son of Man; the field is 
the world; the good seed these are the sons 
of the kingdom, and the weeds are the sons 

39. of the Evil one; the enemy who sowed them 
is the devil; the harvest is the consumma- 



296 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

tion of the world and the reapers are the 

13:40. angels. So, then, just as the weeds are 

gathered out and burnt in the fire, so will it 

41. be at the consummation of the world. The 
Son of Man will send forth his angels, and 
they will gather out from his kingdom all 
things that cause falling away and those 

42. that work lawlessness and cast them into 

the furnace of fire; there will be the wailing (Lk 13:28) 

43. and gnashing of teeth. Then the just will 
shine like the sun in the kingdom of their 
Father. He that has ears let him hearken. (Mk 4:9) 

44. The kingdom of heaven is like treas- P(0?) 

ure hid in a field, which a man found and 

hid, and in his delight he goes and sells all 
that he owns and buys that field. 

45. Again the kingdom of heaven is like a trader in P(0?) 
46. search of fine pearls. When he has found a 

single costly pearl he goes and sells all he 
owns and buys it. 

47. Again the kingdom of heaven is like a drag- R 

net cast into the sea, which collects fish of (Mk 1:17) 

48. every sort. When it was full they dragged it 
up to the beach and sitting down gathered 
the good fish into vessels but threw away 

49. the bad. So will it be at the consummation 
of the world. The angels will go forth and 

50. separate the evil from the just, and cast 

them into the furnace of fire; there will be (Lk 13:28) 
the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. 
51. Have you understood all this? They answered, 

Yes. And he said to them, For this reason R(0?) 

52. every scribe converted to the kingdom of 
heaven is like a householder who produces 
out of his store things both new and old. 

53. AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN JESUS HAD FIN- R 

ISHED THESE PARABLES HE DEPARTED 
THENCE. 



CONCERNING CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 297. 

BOOK IV 
CONCERNING CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 

" Keep the unity of the Spirit." Eph. 4:3. 

" All things indeed are clean; but it is good not to eat flesh nor drink wine, nor 
do anything whereby thy brother stumbkth." Rom. 14:20f. 

DIVISION A. JESUS AND THE BROTHERHOOD. CHH. 14-17 

i. The Agape in Galilee. 

13:54. And he came to his native place and pro- M 

ceeded to teach the people in their syna- Mk 6:1-6 
gogue, so that they were astonished and 
said, Where did the man get this wisdom 

55. and these miraculous powers? Is not this 
the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother 
called Mary, and his brethren James and 

56. Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his 
sisters, are they not all dwelling here among 

57. us? Where, then, did he get all this? So 
they were stumbled at him. But Jesus said 
to them, A prophet is not without honor 
save in his native place and his own house- 

58. hold. And he performed but few miracles 
there because of their want of faith. 

14:1. At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the fame M 

2. of Jesus and said to his servants, This is Mk 6:14-16 
John the Baptist; he is risen from the 
dead, and for this reason miracles are per- 
formed through him. 
3. For Herod had arrested John and bound and M 

put him in prison on account of Hero- Mk 6:17-29 

4. dias his brother Philip's wife; for John had 
said to him, It is not lawful for thee to have 

5. her. And though (Herod] desired to put 
(John) to death he was afraid of the people, 
for they considered John to be a prophet. 

6. But when Herod's birthday came the 
daughter of Herodias danced before the 

7. company and so pleased Herod that he 
promised with an oath to give her whatever 

8. she asked. So she, instigated by her mother, 
said, Give me here on a platter the head of 

9. John the Baptist. And the king, though he 
was distressed, yet because of his oaths and 



298 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the guests present ordered it to be given her. 
14:10. He sent and beheaded John in the prison, 

11. and the head was brought on a platter and 
given to the girl and she carried it to her 

12. mother. And his disciples came and took 

up the corpse and buried it; then M 

they went and reported the matter to Jesus. Mk 6:30-44 
13. Now when Jesus heard it, he withdrew by boat M 

to a desert place in private. And when 
the crowds heard of it they followed him on 

14. foot out of the cities. So when he disem- 
barked he saw a great multitude; and he had 
compassion on them and healed their sick. 

15. And when evening came the disciples ap- 
proached him saying, It is a desert place 
and the hour is now late; send away the 
crowds that they may go into the villages 

16. and buy themselves food. But he said to 
them, They have no need to go away; do ye 

17. yourselves give them food. And they say 
to him, All we have here is five loaves and 

18. two fishes. And he said, Bring them here 

19. tome. Then he bade the crowds to sit down 
on the grass, and taking the five loaves and 
the two fishes he looked up to heaven and 
blessed and broke the loaves and gave to the 
disciples, and the disciples to the crowds. 

20. And all ate and were satisfied, and of the 
broken pieces that remained over they 

21. gathered up twelve baskets full. Now the 
men who ate numbered about five thousand, 
besides women and children. 

22. Then he compelled the disciples to embark in M 

the boat and cross over before him to the Mk 6:45-52 
other side, while he dismissed the crowds. 

23. When he had dismissed the crowds he went 
up onto the plateau by himself to pray, and 
when evening came he was there alone. 

24. But the boat was now midway across the 
sea, buffeted by the waves, for the wind 

25. was against them. And in the fourth watch 
of the night he came to them, walking on 

26. the sea. But when the disciples saw him 
walking on the sea they were terrified say- 
ing, It is an apparition; and they cried out 

27. from fear. And forthwith he spoke to them 
saying, Courage, it is I, have no fear. 

28. And Peter answered him saying, P(N) 



CONCERNING CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 299 

Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee 

14:29. on the water. He said, Come. And Peter 

got down from the boat and walked on 

30. the water and came toward Jesus. But 
facing the storm he was afraid and begin- 
ning to sink he cried out, Lord, save me! 

31. And forthwith Jesus stretched out his hand 
and caught him saying, Thou half-believer, 

32. why didst thou doubt? And when they 
had come up into the boat the wind dropped. 

33. And they that were in the boat did him 
obeisance saying, Truly thou art the Son of 
God. 

34. When they had crossed over they came to land M 

35. at Gennesaret. And the men of that region Mk 6:53-56 
recognized him and sent all over the sur- (Cf. Mt 4:24= 
rounding country and brought to him all Mk 3:10) 
that were sick and besought him to let them 
only touch the tassel of his robe, and all 
who touched it recovered. 

ii. The Law of " Clean " and " Unclean." 

15:1. Then Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem 

2. approached Jesus saying, Why do thy dis- 
ciples transgress the tradition of the elders? 
They do not wash their hands when they 

3. take their food. But he replied, And why 
do you transgress the command of God 

4. with your traditions? God commanded say- (Ex. 20:12) 
ing Honor thy father and thy mother; and (Ex. 21:17) 
again, He that curses father or mother must 

5. suffer death. But you say, Whoever says 
to his father or mother, This money which 

6. might go to you is dedicated to God, need 
not honor his father or mother. So you ab- 
rogate the law of God for the sake of your 

7. own tradition. You hypocrites, well did 
Isaiah prophesy concerning you when he said, 

8. This people honor me with their lips (Is. 29:13) 
But their heart is far from me. 

9. Vain is their worship of me, 

For the doctrines they teach are mere 

precepts of men. 
10. Then he called up the crowd and said to them, M(S) 

11. Listen, and understand: Not what enters Mk 7:14 f. 

a man's mouth defiles him, what defiles (Lk 11:39-41 = 
a man is what comes out of his mouth. Mt 23:25 f.) 

12. Then the disciples came up and said to him, R(N?0?) 



300 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Knowest thou that the Pharisees took of- 
15:13. fence at what they heard thee say? But he 

replied saying, Every plant which my 0? 

heavenly Father did not plant shall be 

14. rooted up. Let them alone, they Q 

are blind leaders of the blind; and if the (Lk 6:39) 
blind serve as guide to the blind both will 
fall into the ditch. 
15. And Peter spoke up saying, Explain the par- M 

16. able to us. And he said, Can it be that Mk 7:17-23 

17. you too are without understanding? Do 
you not see that whatever goes into the 
mouth passes into the belly and is voided 

18. into the drain, while what comes out from 
the mouth issues from the heart, and that 

19. is what defiles the man? For from the heart 
come forth evil designs, murders, adulteries, 
fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 

20. That is what defiles the man, but eating 
without the ablutions does not defile. 

21. Departing thence Jesus withdrew into the re- M(S?) 

22. gions of Tyre and Sidon. And lo, a Co- Mk 7:24-30 
naanite woman came forth from those bor- 
ders and cried out saying, Plave pity on me, 

Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is (Mk 10:47 f.) 

23. cruelly obsessed by a demon. But he an- 
swered her not a word. Then his disciples 
came up and begged him saying, Send her 
away, for she keeps crying out after us. 

24. But he answered, I was not sent to any but (10:6) 

25. the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then 
the woman came and knelt before him say- 

26. ing, Lord, help me! He answered, It is not 
right to take the children's bread and throw 

27. it to the dogs. No, sir, said she; but even 
the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their 

28. masters' table. Then Jesus gave her answer: 
woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee 
as thou dost desire. And from that hour 
her daughter was healed. 

iii. The Agape in Perea. 

29. Leaving that country Jesus proceeded along M 

the sea of Galilee and mounted to the Mk 7:31-37 
30. plateau and established himself there. And 
great crowds came to him bringing the 
lame, blind, deaf-mute, maimed, and many 
others. And they laid them at his feet, and 



CONCERNING CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 301 

15:31. he healed them, so that the crowd mar- (9:32 f.; 12:22 f.) 
veiled when they saw the deaf-mutes speak- 
ing, the maimed restored, the lame walking, 
and the blind seeing; and they glorified the (Is. 29:23) 
God of Israel. 

32. And Jesus called up his disciples and said, I M 

have compassion on the crowd, for they Mk 8:1-10 
have spent three days with me now, and 
they have nothing to eat. I am unwilling 
to dismiss them starving lest they faint on 

33. the road. The disciples say to him, Whence 
should we get loaves enough in the wilder- 

34. ness to satisfy so great a multitude? Jesus 
saith to them How many loaves have you? 
They answered, Seven, and a few little fish. 

35. Then he directed the crowd to take seats 

36. on the ground and took the seven loaves and 
the fishes and after giving thanks broke 
them and gave them to the disciples, and 

37. the disciples to the crowds. And all ate and 
were satisfied, and of the fragments that 
remained over they collected seven ham- 

38. pers full. The men who ate numbered four 
thousand besides the children and women. 

39. Then he dismissed the crowd, got into the 
boat and came into the district of Magadan. 

16:1. And the Pharisees and Sadducees came up, M(S) 

and, in order to tempt him, asked him to Mk 8:11-13 
show them a sign from heaven. But he an- (12:38 f. =Lk 11: 
4. swered them, [2b-3] It is an evil and dis- 16, 29) 
loyal generation that calls for a sign, and no 
sign shall be given it except the sign of 
Jonah. Then he left them and went away. 
5. When the disciples had reached the opposite M(S) 

shore they found they had forgotten to Mk 8:14-21 

6. bring any bread. And Jesus said to them, (Lk 12:1) 
Take heed, beware of the leaven of the 

7. Pharisees and Sadducees. They argued 
with one another saying, We did not bring 

8. any bread. And Jesus, perceiving it, said, 
You half-believers! Why are you arguing 
with one another at having brought no 

9. bread? Do you not yet understand? Do you 
not remember the five loaves of the five 
thousand and how many baskets full you 

10. collected? And the seven loaves of the four 
thousand and how many hampers you col- 

11. lected? Why do you not see that I was not 



302 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

speaking to you about bread? Beware of 
the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 
16:12. Then they understood that he did not mean 
to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees 
and Sadducees, but of the teaching of the 
Pharisees and Sadducees. 

iv. The Revelation of the Christ. 

13. Now when Jesus came into the regions of Caes- M 

area Philippi he asked his disciples, Who Mk 8:27-30 

14. do men say the Son of Man is? They 
answered, Some say John the Baptist, 
others Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of 

15. the prophets. He said to them, And who 
* 16. do you say I am? Then Simon Peter re- 
plied, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 

17. living God. Jesus answered him, P(N) 

Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for it 

was not flesh and blood that revealed this 

18. to thee, but my Father in heaven. And 
now I say to thee, Peter (Rock) is thy 
name, and on this rock I will build my 
Church; the gates of Hades will be power- 

19. less against it. I will give to thee the keys 

of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever thou (18:18) 
dost prohibit on earth will have been pro- 
hibited in heaven, and whatever thou dost 
permit on earth will have been permitted in 

20. heaven. Then he forbade the dis- 
ciples to tell anyone that he was the Christ. 

21. From that time Jesus began to show his dis- M 

ciples that it was ordained that he must Mk 8:31-33 
go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffer- 
ings at the hands of the elders and chief 
priests and scribes and be killed and on the 

22. third day be raised up. And Peter took him 
and began to reprove him for it, saying, God 
forbid, Master, this shall never befall thee. 

23. But he turned and said to Peter, Get behind 
me, thou Satan, thou art a snare to me. 
Thou takest not the view of God but of men. 

24. Then Jesus said to his disciples, If any man M(S) 

chooses to come after me, let him deny him- Mk 8:34-9:1 

25. self, take up his cross and follow me. For (10:38 f. =Lk 14: 
whoever wants to save his life will lose it, 27; 17:33) 
and whoever loses his life for my sake will 

26. find it. For what advantage will it be to a 
man to gain the whole world if he loses his 



CONCERNING CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 303 

own life? Or what will a man give to buy 

16:27. back his life? For the Son of Man is about 

to come in the glory of his Father attended 

by his angels. Then will he requite every 

28. man according to his works. I give you 

my word, some of those that are standing 

here will not taste of death till they see the 

Son of Man coming in his kingdom. 

17:1. Six days afterward Jesus took with him Peter, M 

with James and his brother John, and Mk 9:2-8 
led them up a high mountain by them- 

2. selves. And he was transfigured in their 
presence; his face shone like the sun and (13:43) 
his garments were radiant like the light. 

3. And lo, Moses and Elijah were manifested 

4. to them talking with him. And Peter spoke 
up and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for 
us to be here. If thou approve I will put up 
three booths here, one for thee, one for 

5. Moses and one for Elijah. Now he was 
still speaking when lo, a bright cloud over- 
shadowed them, and lo, a voice came from 
the cloud saying, This is my Son, the Be- 

6. loved, my Chosen. Obey ye him. And 
when the disciples heard it they fell on 

7. their faces and were greatly terrified. But 
Jesus came up and touched them saying, 

8. Arise, have no fear. And looking up they 
saw no one but Jesus alone. 

9. And as they were going down from the moun- M 

tain Jesus charged them saying, Tell the Mk 9:9-13 
vision to no man till the Son of Man is 

10. raised from the dead. And the disciples 
asked him, Why, then, do the scribes say 

11. that Elijah has to come first? He answered, 
Elijah must indeed come and restore all 

12. things. But I tell you Elijah is already come, 
and they did not recognize him, but worked 

their will on him. So too the Son (12b tr.) 

of Man is about to suffer at their hands. 

13. Then the disciples realized that 

he was speaking to them about John the 
Baptist. 

v. An Epileptic Healed. 

14. And when they had reached the crowd a man M 

came up and did him obeisance, saying, Mk 9:14-29 
15. Sir, have pity on my son; he is an epileptic 



304 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

and suffers cruelly. For often he falls into 

17:16. the fire and often into the water. And I 

brought him to thy disciples, but they could 

17. not cure him. Jesus answered, unbeliev- 
ing and perverse generation, how long must 
I be with you? How long have I to bear 

18. with you? Bring him here to me. Then 
Jesus rebuked the demon and it came out 
of the boy and he was healed from that 

19. hour. Then the disciples came up to Jesus 
in private and said, Why could not we cast 

20. it out? He said to them, Because of your 
half -belief, for I give you my word 

If ye could have faith as a grain of Q 

mustard-seed and should say to this moun- (Cf. Mt 21:21M 
tain, Remove hence to yonder place, it Mkll:22f.) 
would remove, and nothing would be im- 
possible to you. [21] 

DIVISION B. THE DISCOURSE. CHURCH ADMINISTRATION. 

CHH. 17:22-18:36 

i. Avoiding Occasions of Stumbling. 

17:22. And as his adherents were mustering in Galilee M 

Jesus said to them, The Son of Man is Mk 9:30-32 
about to be delivered up into the hands 
23. of men; they will kill him, but on the third 
day he will be raised up. At this they were 
greatly distressed. 

24. When they reached Capernaum the P(N) 

collectors of the temple half-shekel came 
to Peter saying, Does not your teacher pay 

25. the temple tax? He said, Yes. But when 
he went indoors Jesus spoke first: Tell me, 
Simon, said he, from whom do earthly kings 
take customs or tribute, from their own 

26. subjects or from aliens? When he said, 
From aliens, Jesus replied, Then their own 

27. people are exempt. However, in order 
that we may avoid giving them offence, 
go to the sea and cast in a hook. Take the 
first fish that comes up, open its mouth, 

and thou wilt find a shekel. Take that and 

give it to them for me and for thyself. 

18:1. It was at that time that the disciples came up M(S) 

to Jesus saying, Who is greater in the Mk 9:33-37 

2. kingdom of heaven? And he called up a (Cf. Mt 20:26 f. 

3. little child, set him among them and said, I = Mk 10:43 f.) 



CONCERNING CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 305 

give you my word, unless you turn and be- 
come like children you will never enter the 

18:4. kingdom of heaven. Whoever 

therefore humbles himself to the level of R(S?) 

this little child, he has the higher rank in (23:12 = Lk 14 

5. the kingdom of heaven. And 11; 18: 14) 

whoever receives one such little child for (10:40) 

6. my sake receives me. But who- M(S) 

ever puts a stumbling-block in the way of Mk 9:42 
one of these little ones that believe in me, 

it were better for him to have a great mill- 
stone hung round his neck and be sunk in 
the depth of the sea. 

7. Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks. Q 

Obstacles must needs be met, but woe to Lk 17:1 f. 
the man through whom the stumbling 

8. comes. If thy hand or thy foot M 

causes thee to stumble, cut it off and cast Mk 9:43-48 
it away, 

It is better for thee to enter into life crip- (Mt 5:29 f.) 

pled or maimed 
Than keep both hands or feet and be cast 

into the everlasting fire. 

9. And if thine eye causes thee to stumble, 

pluck it out and cast it away. 
It is better for thee to enter into life one- 
eyed, 

Than having two eyes to be cast into the 
Gehenna of fire. 

10. Beware of despising one of these P(S?) 

little ones. I tell you their guardian angels 
have unbroken access in heaven to the 
presence of my heavenly Father. [11] 

12. Tell me, if a man has a hundred sheep and Q 

one of them goes astray, will he not leave Lk 15:3-7 
the ninety-nine sheep on the mountain-side 

13. and go in search of the stray? And if he 
happens to find it, I give you my word he 
rejoices over it more than over the ninety- 

14. nine that never went astray. So it is not 
the will of your Father in heaven that one 
of these little ones should be lost. 

ii. Reconciliation of Brethren. 

15. If thy brother sins (against thee), go and re- Q 

prove him between you and him alone. Lk 17:3 

If he listens to thee thou hast gained P(0?) 

thy brother. If he will not listen, take 



306 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

along with thee one or two others, so 
that every case may be decided at the (Dt. 17:6) 
18:17. mouth of two or three witnesses. If he 
will not listen to them, appeal to the church; 
and if he refuses to listen to the church, 

18. treat him as a heathen or a tax-collector. I 

give you my word, Whatever you prohibit (16:19) 
on earth will have been prohibited in 
heaven, and whatever you permit on earth 
will have been permitted in heaven. 

19. Furthermore I tell you, If two of you P(0?) 

agree on earth about anything you pray 

for, it will be done for you by my Father 

20. in heaven; for wherever two or three are 

met together in my name, there will I be (28:20) 

in the midst of them. 
21. Then Peter came up and said to him, Lord Q 

how often should I forgive my brother after Lk 17:4 (cf. Ev. 

he has sinned against me? Up to seven Naz.) 

22. times? Jesus said to him, I tell thee not up 

to seven, but up to seventy times seven 

times. 
23. For this reason the kingdom of heaven is com- P(R? ) 

parable to a king who resolved to settle 

24. accounts with his slaves. When he began 
the settlement a debtor was brought to him 

25. who owed him ten thousand talents. When 
he could not pay, the owner ordered that he 
and his wife and children and all his belong- 
ings should be sold, and payment be made. 

26. So the slave fell on his knees before him 
saying, Have pity on me and I will pay 

27. thee all. And the master of that slave had 
compassion on him and released him and 

28. forgave him the entire debt. But as that 
slave went forth he found one of his fellow- 
slaves that owed him a hundred shillings, 
and seizing him by the throat he demanded, 

29. Pay me that debt! So his fellow-slave fell 
at his feet and implored him, Have pity on 

30. me and I will pay thee. But he would not. 
He went off and had him cast into prison un- 

31. til he should pay the debt. And when the 
man's fellow-slaves knew what had hap- 
pened they were greatly distressed and came 
and told their master everything that had 

32. happened. Then his master summoned him 
and said, Thou wicked slave. I forgave thee 



CONCERNING CHURCH ADMINISTRATION 307 

all that debt because thou didst entreat me. 
18:33. Shouldest thou not have had pity on thy 

34. fellow-slave as I had pity on thee? And in 
hot anger the owner handed him over to 
the torturers till he should have paid all that 

35. was owing to him. So will my heavenly 
Father also do to you unless each of you 
forgive his brother from the heart. 

19:la. AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN JESUS HAD FIN- R 

ISHED THESE DISCOUESES, HE DEPARTED 
FROM GALILEE. 



308 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 



BOOK V 

CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 

"For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ" 

II Cor. 5:10 

DIVISION A, JESUS IN JUDEA. CHH. 19-22 

i. Teachings on the Way to the Cross. 

19:lb. And he came into the borders of Judea be- M 

2. yond Jordan. And great multitudes fol- Mk 10:1 

lowed him, and he healed them there. 
3. Then the Pharisees came up to tempt him M 

and said, Is it lawful for a man to divorce Mk 10:2-12 

4. his wife for every kind of reason? He an- 
swered, Have ye not read how He that made 
them from the beginning created them 

5. male and female? And He said, For this (Gen. 1:27; 2:24) 
cause a man will leave his father and mother 

and will cleave to his wife and the two will 

6. become one flesh. Thus they are no longer 

7. two, but are one flesh. They ask him, Then 
why did Moses enact that before repudiat- 
ing his wife a man must give her a certificate (Dt. 24:1, 3) 

8. of divorce? He replied, Moses permitted 
you to divorce your wives on account of the 
hardness of your hearts, but it was not so 

9. from the beginning. I tell you that whoever (Cf. 5:32) 
divorces his wife for any reason except un- 
chastity and marries another, commits 
adultery. 

10. The disciples say to him, If the relation of a P(0?) 

man to a woman be such it is advisable 

11. not to marry. He answered, Not all are able 
to observe this rule. It is only for those 

12. that have the gift; for there are (0?S?) 

eunuchs which have been such from their 

birth, and there are eunuchs which have 
been emasculated by men, and there are 
eunuchs which have made themselves such 
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.- 



-He who can receive this, let him ( 11:14) 

receive it. 

13. Then were little children brought to him that M(S?) 

he might lay his hands on them and pray Mk 10-13:16 
for them. And the disciples checked the 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 309 

19:14. people. But Jesus said to them, Let the 
little children come to me, and do not hinder 
them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs (18:3) 

15. to the childlike. Then he laid his hands on 

them and went on his way. 
16. And lo, a man came up and said to him, Teacher, M 

what good work must I perform to have Mk 10:17-22; cf. 

17. eternal life? And he said to him, Why Ev. Naz. 
askest thou me about goodness? One 

alone is good. But if thou desirest to enter 

18. into life, keep the commandments. What 
commandments? said he. Jesus answered, 

The scripture: Thou shalt not kill; thou (Ex. 20:12-16) 
shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not 
steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; 

19. honor thy father and thy mother; 

and thou shalt love thy neighbor as (R, 22:39) 

20. thyself. The youth replied, I (Lev. 19:18) 

have kept all these, what else is required? 

21. Jesus said to him, // thou seekest to attain 
perfection, go, sell all thou ownest and 

give the money to the poor, and thou wilt (6:20=Lk 12:33) 
have treasure in heaven; then come, fol- 

22. low me. When the youth heard that he 
went away grieved, for he happened to 
have great possessions. 

23. And Jesus said to his disciples, I give you my M 

word, it is hard for a rich man to enter Mk 10:23-27 

24. the kingdom of heaven. I tell you again, it 
is easier for a camel to go through a needle's 
eye than for a rich man to get into the king- 

25. dom of heaven. And when the disciples 
heard that they were completely astonished 

26. and said, Who, then, can be saved? Jesus 
looked at them and said, With men it is 
impossible, but with God all things are 
possible. 

27. Then Peter spoke up and said to him, Lo, we M 

have left all our belongings and followed Mk 10:28-31 

28. thee; what, then, are we to receive? Jesus 

said to them, 7 give you my (Q) 

word, In the Regeneration, when the Son Lk 22:28-30 
of Man has taken his seat on the " throne (Ps. 122:5) 
of glory," you that have followed me shall 
also sit on twelve thrones to govern the 

29. twelve tribes of Israel. And 

everyone that has left brethren or sisters 
or father or mother, or children or lands 



310 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

or houses for my name's sake will receive 
many times as much and will inherit eternal 
19:30. life. But many that are first will be last, M (S?) 

and the last first. Lk 13:30 

20:1. For the kingdom of heaven is like a house- P(S?) 

holder who went forth early in the morning 

2. to hire laborers for his vineyard; and after 
agreeing with the laborers to pay them a 
shilling a day he sent them into his vine- 

3. yard. And about the third hour he came 
forth and saw other laborers standing in 

4. the market place unemployed. And he 
said to them, Do you also go into my vine- 
yard, and I will pay you whatever is right. 

5. So they went. Going out again at noon and 

6. at the ninth hour he did likewise. And 
when at the eleventh hour he came out 
and found still others standing he saith to 
them, Why have you stood here idle all the 

7. day long? They say to him, Because no 
man has hired us. He answered, Do you too 

8. go into my vineyard. And when night fell 
the owner of the vineyard said to his over- 
seer, Call the workmen and pay them then: 
wages, beginning with the last and so on 

9. to the first. When those came who had been 
hired about the eleventh hour they received 

10. a shilling each. So when the first laborers 
came they supposed they would get more, 

11. but they too received each his shilling. And 
when they had received it they began to 

12. murmur against the householder saying, 
These last have worked but a single hour, 
and thou hast ranked them equal to us who 
have borne the brunt of the day and its 

13. heat! But he took up one of them and said, 
My man, I do thee no injustice; didst thou 

14. not agree with me for a shilling? Pick up 
that coin that belongs to thee and begone. 
I choose to give this last man the same as 

15. to thee. May I not do as I please with what 

belongs to me? Art thou envious because R(S?) 

16. I am generous? Thus the last shall be first Mk 10:31; Lk 
and the first last. 13:30 

17. Now as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusa- M 

lem he took aside the twelve privately and Mk 10:32-34 
18. said to them on the journey, Lo, we are 
going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 311 

will be delivered up to the chief priests and 
scribes, and they will condemn him to death 
20:19. and hand him over to the Gentiles to be 
mocked and crucified, and the third day 
he will be raised to life. 
20. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came M 

up to him with her sons, and making obei- Mk 10:35-40 

21. sance asked of him a favor. He said to 
her, What dost thou ask? She says to 
him, Give direction that these two sons of 
mine may sit one at thy right hand and 

22. one at thy left in thy kingdom. Jesus re- 
plied, You do not know what you are ask- 
ing for. Are you able to drink the cup that 
I am about to drink? They said to him, 

23. We can. He says to them, You shall indeed 
drink my cup, but a seat on my right hand 
or my left is not mine to give; it belongs 
to those for whom it has been prepared by 
my Father. 

24. And when the ten heard of it they were angry M(S?) 

25. with the two brothers. But Jesus called Mk 10:41-45 
them up and said, You know how the (Lk 22:24-27) 
rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, 

26. and their great ones oppress them. It must 
not be so with you. Whoever desires to be 
great among you must be your servant, 

27. and whoever wants to be first among you 

28. must be your slave, just as the Son of Man 

came not to be served but to serve, and to (Mk 14:24) 
give his life as a ransom for many. 

ii. Rejection in Jerusalem. 

29. As they were leaving Jericho a great crowd M - 

30. followed him, and lo, two blind men, sitting Mk 10:46-52 

by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus (cf. Mt 9:27 f.; 
was passing cried out saying, Have pity on 12:22) 

31. us, thou Son of David! The crowd checked 
them, bidding them be silent. But they 
cried out all the more, Lord, pity us, thou 

32. Son of David! So Jesus stopped and called 
them, saying, What do ye wish me to do 

33. for you? They say to him, Lord, that our 

34. eyes should be opened. Moved with com- (Mk 8:22 f.) 
passion Jesus touched their eyes, and 
forthwith they regained their sight and 

followed him. 
21:1. And when they came near to Jerusalem and M(N) 



312 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

had reached Bethphage on the Mount of Mk 11:1-10 
21:2. Olives, Jesus despatched two disciples say- 
ing to them, Go to the village opposite and 
you will find forthwith an ass tethered 
with a colt alongside of her. Untie them 

3. and bring them to me. If anyone says any- 
thing to you, say, The Lord needs them; 
then he will let them go at once. 

4. This took place that the word spoken by (N) 
the prophet might meet fulfilment, 

5. Tell ye the daughter of Zion, (Is. 62:11 LXX) 
Lo, thy king cometh unto thee, (Zech. 9:9 Hebr.) 
Meek and mounted on an ass, 

And on a colt the foal of an ass. 

6. So the disciples went and did 

7. just as Jesus had commanded them. They 
brought the ass and the colt and put 
their garments on them, and Jesus seated 

8. himself thereon. And most of the crowd 
spread their garments on the road, while 
others cut branches from the trees and 

9. strewed them on the road. And the crowds 
that preceded and those that followed 
behind shouted, 

Hosannah (" save, we pray ") to the Son (Ps. 118; 25 f.; 

of David. cf. Mk 11:10) 

Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah's 

name! 
Hosannah in high heaven! 

10. When he came into Jerusalem the whole 

11. city was stirred, saying, Who is this? And 
the crowds replied, This is the prophet 
Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee. 

12. Then Jesus went into the temple of God and M 

drove out all that were buying and sell- Mk 11:11, 15-19 
ing in the temple; he overturned the tables 
of the money-changers and the stalls of 
13. the dove-sellers and said to them, It is 

written " My house shall be called a house (Is. 56:7) 
of prayer," but ye make it a " den of (Jer. 7:11) 
thieves." 

14. And the blind and the lame came up to him P(R, S?) 

15. in the temple and he healed them. But when 
the chief priests and scribes saw the wonders 
that he performed and the children shouting 
in the temple, Hosannah to the Son of 

16. David, they were indignant and said to him, 
Hearest thou what these are saying? And 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 313 

Jesus says to them, Yes; did you never 

read the scripture, From the mouth of babes (Ps. 8:3, LXX) 

and sucklings Thou hast won perfect praise? 

21:17. Then he left them and went M 

forth out of the city to Bethany where he 
made his lodging. 
18. In the morning as he was returning to the city M(S) 

19. he felt hungry, and seeing a fig tree by Mk. 11:12 14, 
the roadside he went up to it, but found 20-24 
nothing on it but leaves. So he says to it, 

Let there be no fruit from thee hereafter 
forever! And instantly the fig tree withered 

20. away. And when the disciples saw it they 
marvelled saying, How is it that the fig 

21. tree suddenly withered? Jesus took them 

up and said to them, I give you my word, S 

If ye have faith and do not doubt, you will (17:20=Lk 17:6) 

not only do what was done to the fig tree, 

but even if you should say to this mountain, 

Be lifted up and cast into the sea it would 

22. be done. Whatever things you ask in prayer (18:15=Lk 
if you believe you will receive them. 17 :3 f .) 

23. And when he had come into the temple and M 

was teaching there came up to him the chief Mk 11:27-33 
priests and elders of the people saying, By 
what authority doest thou these things? 

24. Who gave thee this authority? And Jesus 
answered them, I too will ask you a single 
question, which if you answer I also will 
tell you by what authority I do these things. 

25. Whence came the baptism of John? Was 
that from heaven, or from men? So they 
argued with one another saying, If we say, 
From heaven, he will say to us, Why, then, 

26. did ye not believe him? But if we say, From 
men, we fear the crowd, for all men consider 

27. John to have been a prophet. So they an- 
swered Jesus, We do not know. He in turn 
replied to them, No more will I tell you 
what authority I have for acting as I do. 

28. Tell me what you think. A man Q? 

had two sons. He approached the first Lk 15:11-32 
and said, Son, go work today in my vine- 

29. yard. He answered, I will not; but after- 
wards he changed his mind and went. He 

30. came to the second and said the same to 
him. His answer was, I will, sir. But he 

31. did not go. Which of the two did the will of 



314 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

his father? They say to him, The first. 
Jesus said to them, I give you my word, 
the tax-collectors and harlots are going into 

the kingdom of God before you. 

21:32. For John came to you teaching a way of Q 

salvation, and you put no faith in him. Lk 7:29 f. 
But the tax-collectors and harlots put 
faith in him, while you, on your part, did 
not even change your minds afterwards 
to put faith in him. 

33. Hear another parable. There was a house- M(S?) 

holder who planted a vineyard, put a wall Mk 12:1-12 
around it, dug a winevat in it, and built a (23:37-39 = Lk 
watch-tower. Then he leased it to vine- 13:34f.) 

34. dressers and went abroad. When vintage 
season came he sent his slaves to the vine- 

35. dressers to collect his share of the crop. But 
the vine-dressers took his slaves and beat 
one, killed another, and stoned a third. 

36. Again he sent other slaves in greater number 
than the first, and they treated them in 

37. the same way. Finally he sent his son to 
them, saying, They will respect my son. 

38. But when the vine-dressers saw his son 
they said to themselves, This is the heir. 
Come on, let us kill him and seize his in- 

39. heritance! So they seized him, dragged 
him out of the vineyard and killed him. 

40. Well, then, when the owner of the vineyard 
comes what will he do to those vine- 

41. dressers? They replied, He will put the 
wretches to a wretched death and will lease 
the vineyard to other vine-dressers who will 
pay him his share of the crop in due season. 

42. Jesus says to them, Did you never read in 
the Scriptures, 

The stone that the builders rejected (Ps. 118:22 f.) 
Has been made the chief corner-stone: 
This corner-stone came from Jehovah, 
And is marvellous in our eyes. 

43. For this reason I tell you, The kingdom of 
God will be taken away from you and given 

45. to a nation that produces its fruits. [44] And 
when the chief priests and the Pharisees 
had heard his parables they realized that 

46. he was speaking about them; so they tried to 
seize him but were afraid of the crowds, for 
the crowds considered him to be a prophet. 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 315 

22:1. Then Jesus again addressed them in parables, Q 

2. saying, The kingdom of heaven may be Lk 14:16-24 
compared to a king who made a marriage- 

3. feast for his son. He sent his slaves to 
summon the guests invited to the wed- 

4. ding, but they would not come. Again he 
sent other slaves saying, Tell the invited 
guests, Lo, my banquet is ready, my oxen 
and fat cattle are slaughtered, all prepara- 

5. tions are made, come to the wedding. But 
they paid no heed but went off, one to his 
farm, another to his shop. And 

6. the rest seized his slaves and abused and R 

7. killed them. So the king was angry and 
sent his armies and destroyed those 
murderers and burnt their city. 

8. Then he says to his slaves, The wedding 
feast is ready, but the invited guests were 

9. unworthy. Therefore go to the partings of 
the roads and invite all comers to the 

10. wedding. So the slaves went forth into 
the streets and gathered all that they found, 
both bad and good, and the wedding was 

11. supplied with guests. Now when 

the king came in to inspect the banqueters P(R, 0?) 
he espied there a man not clothed with a (13:36-43, 47-50) 

12. wedding garment, and says to him, My man, 
how came you in here without a wedding 

13. garment? And he was speechless. Then the 
king said to the servants, Bind him hand 
and foot and cast him out into the darkness 
outside. In that place there will be wailing 

14. and gnashing of teeth. For " many are in- 0? 
vited but few are chosen." 

iii. Debates in the Temple. 

15. Then the Pharisees went away and laid a plot M 

16. to trap him in his talk. They send to him Mk 12:13-17 
their disciples together with the Hero- 

dians, who said, Teacher, we know that thou 
art sincere and teachest the way of God in 
truth, and hast no fear of any man, for thou 

17. dost not court human favor. Tell us, then, 
thy judgment about this: Is it lawful or not 

18. to pay the poll-tax to Caesar? But Jesus 
saw through their malignity and said, Why 
do you lay traps for me, you hypocrites? 

19. Show me the coin for taxes. So they brought 



316 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

22:20. him a shilling. And Jesus says to them, 
Whose likeness is this? Whose is this in- 

21. scription? They say, Caesar's. Then said he 
to them, Render to Caesar what belongs to 
Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. 

22. When they heard that they marvelled; so 
they left him and went away. 

23. The same day Sadducees approached him, M 

men who hold that there is no resurrection. Mk 12:18-27 

24. They put this question to him: Teacher, 

Moses said, If a man die childless his (Dt. 25:5) 
brother must espouse his widow and raise 

25. up offspring for his brother. We had a case 
of seven brothers. The first married and 
died; having no children he left his wife to 

26. his brother. The same happened to the 
second and the third, down to the seventh. 

27/28. After all the rest the woman died. Well, then, 
at the resurrection whose wife will she be? 

29. They all had her. Jesus answered them, You 
go wrong because you understand neither 

30. the Scriptures nor the power of God. At the 
resurrection there is neither marrying nor 
giving in marriage, men are like the angels 

31. of God in heaven. But as for the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, have you not read the 

32. promise spoken to you by God: I am the (Ex. 3:6) 
God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and 

the God of Jacob? He is not a God of dead 

33. ghosts, but of a living people. And when 
the crowds heard it they marvelled at his 
teaching. 

34. But the Pharisees, when they heard that he M 

had silenced the Sadducees, mustered Mk 12:28-34 

35. their forces, and one of their number who 
was a lawyer put a question to him to 

36. tempt him, Teacher, what is the supreme 

37. command in the Law? And he said to him, 

The command, Thou shalt love the Lord (Dt. 6:5) 
thy God with thy whole heart, and with 
thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. 

38. This is the first and greatest commandment. 

39. There is a second which is like it, Thou (Lev. 19:18) 

40. shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. All the R 
Law and the prophets hang upon these two 
commands. 

41. And while the Pharisees were gathered to- M 

42. g ether Jesus put a question to them say- Mk 12:35-37 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 317 

ing, Tell me what you think about the 
Christ. Whose son is he? They replied, 
22:43. David's. He said to them, How is it, then, 
that David under inspiration calls him Lord, 
saying, 

44. Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right (Pa. 110:1) 

hand, 
Till I put thine enemies under thy feet. 

45. If, then, David calls him Lord how can he 

46. be his son? And no man could R 

give him answer to this question, nor did 
anyone venture to ask him anything further. 

DIVISION B. DISCOURSE ON JUDGMENT TO COME 

i. Woes on Scribes and Pharisees. Ch. 23. 

23:1. Then Jesus made a discourse to the crowds R 

2. and to his disciples saying: The scribes and 

3. Pharisees occupy Moses' seat, therefore 
whatever they tell you do and observe it, 
but do not follow their practice, for they 
talk but do not act accordingly. 

4. They invent heavy obligations and im- Q 
pose them on men's shoulders, but them- (Lk 11:46) 
selves lift not a finger to remove them. 

5. All their actions are performed to R 

catch the notice of men. They make their 
phylacteries broad and wear large tassels, 

6. they claim the best seats at M(S) 

banquets and the places of honor in the Mk 12:38-40 

7. synagogues and greetings in the market- (Lk 11:43-46) 
places and to be called Rabbi by R 

8. men. But you are not to be called Rabbi, 
for one alone is your Teacher, and all of 

9. you are brothers. You are not to call any 
one upon earth Father, for One alone is 

10. your heavenly Father; nor must you be 
called Leaders, for one alone, the Christ, is 

11. your Leader. He that is greater Q 

among you must be your servant. (Lk 9:48b) 

12. Whoever exalts himself shall be hum- (18:4=Lk 14:11) 

bled, and whoever humbles himself shall 

be exalted. 
13. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, Q 

for you shut the kingdom of heaven in Lk 11:52 

men's faces; you neither enter yourselves, 

nor will you allow those to enter who are 

about to do so. [14] 
15. Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; P(R?) 



318 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

for you travel about sea and land to make 
a single proselyte, and when he is won 
you make him twice as much a son of Ge- 
henna as yourselves. 

23:16. Woe to you, blind guides that you are! You P(R?) 

say, If a man swears by the sanctuary it 
does not signify, but if he swears by the gold 

17. of the sanctuary the oath is binding. Fools 
and blind! For which is greater, the gold, 
or the sanctuary that makes the gold sacred? 

18. Again you say, If a man swears by the altar 
it does not signify, but if he swears by the 

19. offering upon it the oath is binding. You 
blind! For which is greater, offering, or the 

20. altar that makes the offering sacred? So, 
then, he who swears by the altar swears by 

21. it and by all that lies on it; and he that 
swears by the temple swears by it and by 

22. Him whose dwelling it is; he who swears by 
heaven swears by the throne of God and by 
Him who sits upon it. 

23. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, Q 

hypocrites; for while you tithe mint and Lk 11:39-42, 44, 
anise and cummin you pass by the weight- 47 f . 
ier commands of the Law, justice and 
mercy and good faith. These you should 
have done without neglecting the other. 

24. Blind guides that you are, " fil- R(0?) 

tering out a gnat and swallowing a camel! " 

25. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; Q 

for you cleanse the outside of cup and Lk 11:39-41 
plate, but their contents are obtained 
26. by your rapacity and greed. Thou blind 
Pharisee, cleanse first the contents of the 
cup, that the outside of it may be pure also. 

27. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; Q 

for you are like whitewashed tombs; out- Lk 11:44 
wardly they present a fine appearance 
while inwardly they are full of dead men's 
28. bones and all manner of impurity. So you 
too appear outwardly in men's eyes to be 
righteous, but inwardly you are full of 
hypocrisy and lawlessness. 

29. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; Q 

for you build tombs for the prophets and Lk 11:47 f. 
decorate the sepulchres of the saints, 
30. saying, If we had lived in the days of our 
fathers we would not have joined with them 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 319 

23:31. in shedding the blood of the prophets. Thus 
you bear witness against yourselves that 
you are sons of those who killed the 

32. prophets. You, too, fill up the R 

33. measure of your fathers' wickedness; you (3:7; 12:34) 
serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you 

escape the sentence to Gehenna ? 
34. On this account, Q 

Lo, I send to you prophets and sages and Lk ll:49f.; 13: 
scribes; 34f. quoting "the 

Some of them ye will kill and crucify, Wisdom of God"; 
Some ye will scourge in your synagogues, cf. I Clem. 57 
And persecute from city to city. 

35. That you might be found guilty for all the 

just blood shed upon earth, 

From the blood of Abel the saint (Gen. 4:3; II 

Down to the blood of Zechariah son of Chron. 24:20 f.; 

Barachiah, cf. Ev. Naz.) 

Whom you slew between temple and altar. 

36. I give you my word it will all be visited on (R 8 ?) 
this generation. 

37. Jerusalem, Jerusalem! murderess of the 

prophets 

And stoner of the messengers sent to her! 
How often did I seek to gather thy 

children, 
As a mother-bird gathers her nestlings 

under her wings! 

38. But you would not have it! See, "your (R s ?) 
House is left to you forsaken; " for I tell (Jer. 12:7; 22:5) 

39. you, You shall see me no more, till you cry, 

"Blessed be the messenger who comes in (Ps. 118:26) 
Jehovah's name." 

ii. The Doom of Jerusalem. Ch. 24. 

24:1. Then Jesus left the temple and went on his M 

way. And his disciples came up to show Mk 13:1 f. 
2. him the temple buildings, but he replied to 
them, You see all this? I give you my word, 
there will not be left here one stone upon 
another that will not be overthrown. 

3. Now as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives M 

the disciples came up to him in private Mk 13:3 f. 



320 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

and said, Tell us, when will this happen? 
What will be the sign of thy Coming and 
of the consummation of the world? 

(a) Birthpangs of the Christ 

24:4. And Jesus gave them this answer: Beware lest M(S) 

5. any man lead you astray; for many will Mk 13:5-8 
come in my name saying, I am the Christ, Lk 17:23 

6. and will lead many astray. You .will hear 
of wars and rumors of wars. Take heed 
not to be agitated, for this must needs take 

7. place, but the end will not be yet. For na- 
tion will rise against nation and kingdom 
against kingdom; there will be famines and 

8. earthquakes in various places. All these 
are the beginning of the birthpangs. 

9. Then they will hand you over to affliction, M(S) 

and will kill you, and you will be hated by Mk 13:9-13 
all the Gentiles on account of my name. (Mt 10:17-22) 

10. Many at that time will be driven to recant 
and they will betray one another and hate 

11. one another. Many false prophets will arise 
and lead many astray. And be- 

12. cause of the increase of lawlessness in R 
most of you love will grow cold; 

13. but he that holds out to the end will be 

14. saved. And this gospel of the M 

kingdom will be preached throughout the Mk 13:10 
whole world for a witness against all the 
Gentiles, thereafter the end will come. 

(b) The Great Tribulation 

15. So when you see the Abomination that makes M(S) 

desolate spoken of by the prophet Daniel Mk 13:14-20 
standing in a holy place (let the reader 

16. note this), then let those in Judea flee to (Lk 17:31) 

17. the mountains. Let a man on his house- 
top not go down to save the things in 

18. his house, and a man in the field not turn 

19. back to get his coat. Woe to the women (Lk 23:28 f.) 
with child and to those that are nursing 

20. children in those days. And pray that your 
flight may not be in winter nor on a sab- 

21. bath. For at that time there will be great 
affliction such as has never been from the (Dan. 12:1) 
beginning of the world until now; no, and 

22. never shall be. And if those days had not (Is. 10:23 cf. 
been cut short no flesh would have been Rom. 9:28) 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 321 

saved, but for the elect's sake those days 
will be cut short. 
24:23. Then, if anyone tells you, Lo, here is the Christ! 

24. or, Lo, there he is! do not believe it; for M(S) 
false Christs and false prophets will arise Mk 13:21-23 
and produce great signs and wonders, so as (Lk 17:23 f., 37) 
to mislead even the elect, if that were pos- 

25. sible. Lo, I have told you in advance. 

26. If, therefore, they say to you, Lo, Q 

he is in the wilderness, go not forth; lo, Lk 17:23 f., 37 

27. he is in the chamber, believe it not, For 
as the lightning flashes from east to west, 
so will be the Coming of the Son of Man. 

28. For " wherever the carcase lies, (Job 39:30) 

there will the vultures gather." 

(c) Coming of the Judge 

29. But forthwith after the affliction of those M 

days , Mk 13:24-27 

The sun will be darkened, (Is. 13:10) 

And the moon will not give her light, 
The stars will drop from heaven, (Is. 34:4) 

And the Powers of the heavens will be (Hg. 2:21) 
shaken. 

30. Then the Sign of the Son of Man will ap- 
pear in the skies, and all tribes on earth (Zech. 12:10-14) 
will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man (Dan. 7:13 f.) 
coming on the clouds of heaven with power 

31. and great glory.. And he will send out his (Is. 27:13) 
angels with a great trumpet-call to muster 

his elect from the four winds, from one hori- (Dt. 30:4, LXX) 
zon to the other. 

32. Let the fig tree teach you a parable. When M(S) 

its twigs become tender and put forth leaves Mk 13:28-32 

33. you know that summer is at hand; so also, 
when you see all these things taking place, 
you will know that he is at hand, at the very 

34. door. I give you my word, the present gen- (16:28=Mk 9:1 
eration will not pass away till all these things = Lk 9 :27) 

35. come to pass. Heaven and earth will pass (5:17=Lk 16:17) 
away, but my words will never pass away. 

36. But as concerning that day and hour no 
man has knowledge, not even the angels in 
heaven nor the Son, but the Father alone. 

37. Only, the Coming of the Son Q 

of Man will be just as happened in the Lk 17:26 f., 34 f. 

38. days of Noah. For as in the days before 
the flood men were eating and drinking, 



322 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

marrying and giving in marriage until the 

24:39. day came that Noah entered the ark; and as 

they knew nothing till the flood came and 

swept them all away, so also will be the 

40. Coming of the Son of Man. Then there 
will be two men in the field, one will be 

41. taken and the other left; two women will 
be grinding at the millstone, one will be 

42. taken and the other left. ; There- M 

fore watch, because you know not what Mk 13:35 
day your Lord may come. 

(d) Be Watchful 

43. This, however, you do know; that if the house- Q 

holder had known in what watch of the Lk 12:39 f. 
night the thief would come, he would 

.<. have been on his guard and not have per- 

44. mitted his house to be broken into. For 

this reason do you too be ready, for in an 

hour that you expect not the Son of Man 

will come. 

45. Who, then, is the faithful and thoughtful slave Q 

whom his master sets over his household Lk 12:42-46 
to give to all their supplies at the proper 

46. time? That slave is happy whom his master 

47. finds so doing when he arrives. I give you 
my word, he will entrust all his property to 

48. him. But if the bad slave says to himself, 

49. My master is long in coming, if he begins 
to beat his fellow-slaves, and to eat and 

50. drink with drunkards, the master of that 
slave will come on a day that he does not 
expect, and at an hour that he does not 

51. know. He will cut him asunder 1 and assign 

his portion with the hypocrites. 

In that place there will be wailing and 
gnashing of teeth. 

iii. The Consummation. Ch. 25. 

(a) Wisdom and Folly 

25:1. Then the kingdom of heaven will be compar- R(S) 

able to ten maidens who took their lamps (Lk 12:35 f.) 
and went out to meet the bridegroom. 

2. Five of them were foolish and five prudent. 

3. For the foolish took their lamps, but no sup- 

1 A misrendering in Q (Mt 24:51=Lk 12:46) of the Semitic expression "will cut 
his portion" ;cf. Is. 53:12. 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 323 

25:4. ply of oil with them. But the prudent took 

5. oil in their vessels with their lamps. And 
when the bridegroom was long in coming 

6. they all grew drowsy and fell asleep. And 
at midnight the cry was raised, Lo, the 
bridegroom is coming, come out to meet 

7. him! Then all the maidens rose and trimmed 

8. their lamps. And the foolish said to the 
prudent, Give us of your oil, for our lamps 

9. are going out. But the prudent replied, No; 
for there may not be enough for us and you 
too; better go to the dealers and buy for 

10. yourselves. And while they were gone to 
buy the bridegroom came, and those that 
were ready went in with him to the marriage 
feast. And the door was shut. 

11. Afterwards came the other maidens say- (Lk 13:25) 
ing, Oh sir, oh sir, open the door for us! 

12. but he replied, I give you my word I do not 

13. know you. Therefore keep on (Mk 13:33) 

the watch, for you do not know either the 

day or the hour. 

(b) Entrusted Funds 

14. For the case is like that of a man going abroad, S 

who summoned his slaves and entrusted (Mk 13:34-36 = 

15. his property to them. To one he gave Lk 19:12-27) 
five thousand dollars, to another two, 

to another one, each according to his capac- 

16. ity. Then he went abroad. Forthwith the 
one who had received the five thousand 
went and traded with it and made five 

17. thousand more. Likewise he that had the 

18. two gained two more. But he that received * 
the one thousand went off and dug a hole 

in the ground and hid the money belonging 

19. to his master. Now a long time afterwards 
the master of those slaves came back and 

20. settled accounts with them. So he who had 
received the five thousand dollars came for- 
ward and brought the other five thousand 
saying, Master, thou gavest me five thou- 
sand dollars, Lo, I have gained five thou- 

21. sand dollars more. His master said to him, 
Well done, thou excellent and loyal slave! 
Thou hast been faithful in charge of a small 
sum, I will put thee in charge of a large sum. 

22. Come and share thy master's feast. Then 



324 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the one that had the two thousand came 
up and said, Master, thou deliveredst to me 
two thousand dollars; see, I have gained 
25:23. two thousand more. His master says to him, 
Well done, thou excellent and loyal slave! 
Thou hast been faithful in charge of a small 
sum, I will put thee in charge of a large 
sum. Come and share thy master's feast. 

24. Then he that had received the one thousand 
dollars came up and said, Master, I knew 
thee to be a hard man. Thou reapest where 
thou didst not sow, and gatherest where 

25. thou didst not scatter. So I was afraid, and 
went and hid thy thousand dollars in the 
ground; lo, here is that which belongs to 

26. thee. His master said to him in reply, Thou 
rascally and idle slave! So thou knewest 
that I reap where I did not sow and gather 

27. where I did not scatter! Well then, thou 
shouldst have given my money to the 
bankers, and when I came back I would 

28. have got my capital with interest. Take 
away from him, then, the thousand dollars 
and give it to him who has the five thou- 

29. sand. For to every one that has (Mk 4:25=Mt 

shall more be given unto superabundance; 13:12=Lk 8:18) 
but from him that has nothing even what 

30. he has will be taken away. And cast out 
the worthless slave into the darkness out- 
side, in that place there will be wailing 
and gnashing of teeth. 

(c) The Judgment of the World 

31. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and R(S) 

all the angels with him, then he will take (Mk 9:37, 41) Lk 

32. his seat on the throne of his glory and 10:16 
all nations will be gathered in his presence, 

and he will separate men one from another 
as a shepherd separates sheep from goats. 

33. And he will set the sheep on his right hand 

34. but the goats on his left. Then the King will 
say to those on his right: Come, you whom 
my Father has blessed, inherit the kingdom 
prepared for you from the foundation of 

35. the world. For I was hungry and you fed 

36. me, thirsty and you gave me drink; I was 
naked and .you clothed me, sick and you 
looked after me, I was in prison and you 



CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT 325 

25:37. visited me. Then the justified will answer, 
Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed 

38. thee, or thirsty and gave thee drink? When 
did we see thee a stranger and gave thee 

39. shelter, or naked and clothed thee? When 
did we see thee sick or in prison and vis- 

40. ited thee? And the King will answer them, 
I give you my word, in so far as you did 
it to one of these brothers of mine, even 

41. the least, you did it to me. Then he will say 
to those on his left, Begone from me, you 
accursed ones, to the eternal fire prepared 

42. for the devil and his angels! For I was 
hungry and you gave me no food, thirsty, 

43. and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a 
stranger, but you entertained me not, I was 
naked but you clothed me not, I was sick 

44. and in prison, but you visited me not. Then 
they too will answer: Lord, when did we 
ever see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger 
or naked or sick or in prison and failed to 

45. minister to thee? And he will answer them, 
I give you my word, in so far as you failed 
to minister to one of these, even the least of 

46. them, you failed of doing it to me. These 
will go away to eternal punishment, but the 
just to eternal life. 

26:1. AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN JESUS HAD FIN- R(M) 

ISHED ALL THESE DISCOURSES HE SAID TO 
HIS DISCIPLES, YOU KNOW THAT IN TWO DAYS (Mk 14:1) 
MORE THE PASSOVER COMES AND THE SON 
OF MAN WILL BE DELIVERED UP TO BE 
CRUCIFIED. 



326 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

THE EPILOGUE 

CHH. 26-28 

"He became obedient unto death. Therefore God has highly exalted him and 
given him the Name which is above every Name." Phil. 2:8 f. 

i. The Plot to Kill Jesus. 

26:3. Then the chief priests and elders of the people M 

met in the palace of the high priest, whose Mk 14:1 f. 

4. surname was Caiaphas, and took counsel 
together to seize Jesus by craft and have 

5. him put to death. Only, they said, it must 
not be during the festival, lest there be a 
tumult among the people. 

6. Now while Jesus was in Bethany, in the house M 

7. of Simon the leper, 1 a woman came up Mk 14:3-9 
to him with an alabaster flask of costly 
perfumed oil and poured it on his head as 

8. he reclined at table. When the disciples 
saw this they were angry and said, What 

9. was the use of this waste? This ointment 
might have been sold for a large sum and 

10. the money given to the poor. But Jesus 
realized what they were saying, and re- 
plied, Why do you annoy the woman? She 

11. has done a noble thing for my benefit. The 
poor you will always have near you, but you 

12. will not always have me. For she, in pouring 
this perfume on my body, has performed an 

13. act appropriate to my burial. I give you 
my word, Wherever this gospel is preached 
in the whole world what this woman has 
done shall also be told as a memorial to her. 

14. Then one of the twelve called Judas Iscariot M 

15. went to the chief priests and said, What Mkl4: 10 f. 
will you give me if I deliver him up to you? 

And they weighed out thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12 

16. for him. So from that time on he sought a LXX) 
good opportunity to betray him. 

ii. The Farewell Supper. 

17. Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the M 

disciples of Jesus came up to him and said, Mk 14:12-16 
Where dost thou wish us to make the 

1 Perhaps a translation error for " the jar-maker, " a word resembling that trans- 
lated " leper " in Aramaic. 



THE EPILOGUE 327 

preparations for thee to eat the Passover? 

26:18. And he said, Go into the city to so-and-so; 

tell him: The Teacher says, My time is near, 

I must eat the Passover at thy house with 

19. my disciples. So the disciples did as Jesus 

directed and made ready the Passover. 
20. And when evening came he took his place with M 

21. the disciples; and as they were eating he Mk 14:17-21 
said: I give you my word, there is one of 

22. you who is going to betray me. And greatly 
distressed at this they began to say to him 

23. each in turn, Surely it is not I, Master? He 
answered, One who has dipped his hand in 
the same dish with me is going to betray 

24. me. The Son of Man must indeed go the 
road the Scripture has laid out for him, but 
woe to that man through whom the Son of 
Man is delivered up. It were better for 
that man if he had never been born. - 

25. Judas, who betrayed him, said, Surely R 

it is not I, Rabbi? He saith to him, That is 

for thee to say. 
26. And as they were eating Jesus took bread and M 

pronouncing the (ritual) blessing broke Mk 14:22-25 
it and gave to the disciples, saying, Take 

27. and eat this, it represents my body. And 
he took a cup and pronouncing the blessing 
gave it to them saying, All of you drink of 

28. this, for it represents my blood, blood of the 
covenant, shed for many for the forgiveness 

29. of sins. I tell you, from henceforth I shall 
no more drink of this " fruit of the vine " 2 
till that day come when I shall drink it new 
with you in the kingdom of my Father. 

iii. Gethsemane. 

30. And when they had sung the hymn 3 they went M 

31. forth to the Mount of Olives. Then Jesus Mk 14:26-31 
said to them: All of you will desert me 

tonight, for it is written, I will smite the (Zech. 13:7) 
shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be 

32. scattered. But after I have been raised up 

33. I will go before you to Galilee. Peter an- 
swered, Even if all should desert thee, I 

34. will never desert thee. Jesus says to him, I 

2 A phrase from the blessing of the cup at the " sanctification " of Passover and 
other festivals. 

3 The Hallel (Pa. 118) sung at Passover; cf. 21 :9. 



328 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

give thee my word, This very night, before 
the cock crows, thou wilt disown me three 
26:35. tunes. Peter says to him, Even if I have to 
die with thee I will never disown thee. All 
the disciples gave him the same assurance. 
36. Then Jesus comes with them to a plot of ground M 

called Gethsemane and told the disciples, Mk 14:32-42 
Sit here while I go over yonder and pray. 

37. And he took with him Peter and the two 
sons of Zebedee, and beginning to feel 

38. distressed and agitated he says to them, 
My heart is sad, sad even to death; stay 

39. here and keep watch with me. And advanc- 
ing a little way he fell on his face to pray, 
saying, Father, if it be possible let this cup 
pass by me. Nevertheless not as I will, but 

40. as thou wilt. Then he came back to the 
disciples and found them asleep; and he 
said to Peter, So you could not keep watch 

41. with me a single hour? Watch and pray 
lest you fall into trial. Your spirit is eager, 

42. but the flesh is weak. Again the second 
tune he went away and prayed saying, My 
Father, if this cup cannot pass unless I 

43. drink it, thy will be done. And when he 
returned he found them asleep again, for 

44. their eyes were heavy. So he left them, 
and returning prayed for the third time 

45. saying the same words again. Then he 
comes to the disciples and says to them, 
Are you still sleeping on and taking your 
rest? Lo, the hour is near that the Son of 
Man is delivered up into the hands of sin- 

46. ners. Rise up, let us be going, lo, my be- 
trayer is close at hand. 

47. While he was still speaking Judas, one of the M 

twelve, approached, and with him a great Mk 14:43-49 
crowd armed with swords and clubs from 
the chief priests and elders of the people. 

48. Now his betrayer had given them a signal 
saying, Whoever I kiss, that is the man; 

49. seize him. So forthwith he went up to 
Jesus saying, Hail, Rabbi, and kissed him. 

50. But Jesus said to him, My man, do your R 
errand. Then the men came up and laid M 

51. hands on Jesus and arrested him. And 
lo, one of Jesus' companions put out his 
hand, drew a sword, and striking the slave 



THE EPILOGUE 329 



of the high priest cut off his ear.- 



26:52. Then Jesus says to him, Put thy sword R(N?) 

back in its place, for all who draw the 

53. sword will die by the sword. What! dost 
thou suppose that I cannot call upon my 
Father to supply me on the spot with more 

54. than twelve legions of angels? Only, how, 
then, would the scriptures be fulfilled which 

55. require this to take place? At 

that hour Jesus said to the crowds: Have 
you come forth to take me with swords 
and clubs like a robber? Day after day I 
sat in the temple teaching and you did not 

56. arrest me. But this has all happened that 
the prophetic scriptures might be fulfilled. 

iv. Trial before Caiaphas. 

Then all the disciples deserted him and fled; M 

57. and the men who had arrested Jesus took Mk 14:50, 53 f. 
him away to the house of Caiaphas the high 

priest, where the scribes and elders had 

58. gathered. But Peter followed him at a dis- 
tance as far as the courtyard of the high 
priest, and when he got inside he sat down 
with the retainers to see the end. 

59. Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin M 

sought false evidence against Jesus to have Mk 14:55-65 

60. him put to death; but they found nothing, 
though many false witnesses came for- 

61. ward. At last two came up and said, This 
man declared, I can destroy the temple 

62. of God and build it again in three days. So 
the high priest rose up and said to him, 
Hast thou no reply to make to what these 

63. witness against thee? But Jesus was silent. 
Then the high priest addressed him: / ad- 
jure thee by the living God to tell us 
whether thou art the Christ the Son of 

64. God. Jesus saith to him: That is for thee to 

say; only I tell you, from now you will see (Ps. 110:1; Dan. 
the Son of Man seated at the right hand of 7:13) 

the (heavenly) Power and coming upon the 

65. clouds of heaven. Then the high priest tore 
his garment saying, He has blasphemed; 
what further need have we of witnesses? 
Lo, you heard the blasphemy just now. 

66. What is your judgment? They answered, 

67. He is amenable to death. Then they spat 



330 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

26:68. in his face and cuffed him, and some that 
buffeted him cried, Prophesy to us, you 
Christ! Tell us who struck you! 
69. Now Peter was sitting outside in the court- M 

yard; and a certain maidservant came up Mk 14:66-72 
to him and said, Thou too wert with Jesus 

70. the Galilean. But he denied it in the pres- 
ence of all, saying, I know not what thou 

71. meanest. When he had gone out into the 
gateway another maidservant noticed him 
and said to the bystanders, This fellow was 

72. with Jesus the Nazarene. Again he denied 
it, saying with an oath, I do not know the 

73. man. But after a little the bystanders 
came up and said to Peter, Surely thou also 
wert one of them; indeed thine accent be- 

74. trayeth thee. Then he began to curse and 
swear, I do not know the man. At that 

75. moment a cock crowed, and Peter remem- 
bered the word spoken by Jesus, Before the 
cock crows thou wilt disown me three times. 
And he went outside and wept bitterly. 

v. Trial before Pilate. 

27:1. When morning came all the chief priests and M 

elders of the people took counsel against Mk 15:1 f. 
2. Jesus to get him put to death. Then they 
bound him, led him away, and handed him 
over to Pilate the governor. 

3. Then Judas his betrayer, when he saw that he P(N?) 

had been condemned, was remorseful and 
brought back the thirty pieces of silver 

4. to the chief priests and elders saying, I did 
wrong to betray innocent blood. They re- 
plied, What does that matter to us; it is 

5. thy affair. So he flung down the pieces of 
silver in the temple and went off and hanged 

6. himself. But the chief priests when they 
had received the money, said, It would not 

be right to put this into the treasury, for it (Dt. 23:19) 

7. is the price of blood. So after consultation 
they bought with it the field of the potter 

8. as a burial place for strangers. For this 
reason that field received the name Field of 

9. Blood unto this day. Then the word spoken 

by the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: And (Zech. 11:12 f. 
I took the thirty pieces of silver, the price LXX; cf. Jer. 32: 
of him who had been valued (whom they 6-15; 18:2f.) 



THE EPILOGUE 331 

27:10. had priced 4 ) by the children of Israel; and 
I gave them for the potter's field, as Jeho- 
vah had bidden me. 

11. Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor; M 

and the governor put to him the question, Mk 15:2-5 
Art thou the king of the Jews? And Jesus 

12. answered, That is for thee to say. But when 
he was accused by the chief priests and 

13. elders he answered nothing. Then Pilate 
says to him, Hearest thou not what great 

14. accusations they make against thee? But (Is. 53:7) 
Jesus gave him not a single word of an- 
swer, so that the governor marvelled 
greatly. 

15. Now it was the governor's custom at the fes- M 

tival to release to them some one prisoner Mk 15:6-15 

16. chosen by the crowd. They had at that 
time a notorious prisoner called Bar-Abbas. 

17. So when they were assembled Pilate said to 
them, Whom do you want me to release to 

18. you, Bar-Abbas, or Jesus called Christ. For 
he knew that (Jesus) had been delivered 

19. up out of jealousy. While he was P(N) 

seated on the tribunal his wife sent word 

to him: Have nothing to do with that in- 
nocent man, for I have suffered greatly 
today in a dream about him. 

20. But the chief priests and elders persuaded 
the crowds to ask for Bar-Abbas and to 

21. have Jesus killed. So when the governor 
asked them, Which of the two do you want 
me to release to you? they said, Bar-Abbas. 

22. Pilate says to them, What then shall I do 
with Jesus, the so-called Christ? They all 
say, Let him be crucified. Why, said he, 

23. what wrong has he done? But they cried 
out more fiercely than before, Let him be 

24. crucified! So when Pilate saw P(R?) 

that it was no use, but rather a riot was 
developing he took water and washed his 

hands in presence of the crowd, saying, I 
am innocent of the blood of this man; it is 

25. your affair. To this all the people replied 
saying, His blood be on us and on our 

26. children! Then he released to 

them Bar-Abbas, but Jesus he scourged 
and handed over to be crucified. 

1 Possibly a gloss in the LXX. See Appended Note V. 



332 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

vi. The Crucifixion. 

27:27. Then the governor's troops took Jesus into M 

the barracks and collected the whole bat- Mk 15:16-20 

28. talion. And when they had stripped him 
they threw a scarlet mantle round him, 

29. plaited a wreath of thorn and set it on his 
head, put a reed in his right hand and knelt 
before him in mockery saying, Hail, king 

30. of the Jews! And spitting on him they took 

31. the reed and struck him on the head. And 
after they had mocked him they took off 
the mantle and clothed him with his own 
garments and led him off to be crucified. 

32. And as they were going forth they met a man M 

of Gyrene named Simon, whom they im- Mk 15:21-32 

33. pressed to carry his cross. Coming to a 
place called Golgotha, which may be trans- 

34. lated Place of a Skull, they offered him a 

drink of wine mixed with gall, but when he (Ps. 69:22) 

35. had tasted it he refused to drink it. So 

when they had crucified him they distrib- (Ps. 22:19) 
uted his garments among them by drawing 

36. lots, and sat down there to keep guard over 

37. him. They also put up over his head the 
charge against him in writing: THIS IS 

38. JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. At 
the same time they also crucified with him 
two robbers, one on the right hand and 

39. one on the left. And those who passed by 

40. reviled him, wagging their heads and say- 
ing: Thou fellow that destroyest the temple 
and rebuildest it in three days, save thyself, 
if thou art the Son of God, and come down 

41. from the cross! So too the chief priests with 
the scribes and the elders scoffed at him 

42. saying, He saved others, but cannot save 
himself. He is king of Israel, let him come 
down now from the cross and we will believe 

43. in him. He trusted in God, let R 

Him now deliver him if He wants him. For (Ps. 22:9; Sap. 
he said, I am the Son of God. 2:13) 

44. The robbers also who were crucified with 
him insulted him in the same way. 

45. Now from midday until three o'clock dark- M 

46. ness covered the whole land, and about Mk 15:33-37 
three o'clock Jesus gave a loud cry: Eli, Eli, 
lema sabachthani, that is, My God, my God, (Ps. 22:2) 
why hast thou forsaken me? Some of those 



THE EPILOGUE 333 

27:47. who were stationed there when they heard 

48. this said, The man is calling for Elijah. So 
one of them ran off forthwith and taking a 
sponge which he soaked in vinegar he put 

49. it on a reed and offered him drink. But the 
rest said, Let him alone; let us see if Elijah 

50. does come to save him. But Jesus gave 
another loud cry and yielded up his spirit. 

51. And lo, the curtain of the temple was torn in M 

52. two from top to bottom, the Mk 15:38 f. 

rocks were split and the tombs opened and P(0?) 

many bodies of the saints who slept in 

53. death were raised up. After his resurrec- 
tion they came forth from the tombs and 
entering the holy city they appeared to 

54. many. But the centurion and 

his men who were watching Jesus, when 
they saw the earthquake and all that hap- 
pened, were greatly terrified and said, 
Truly this man was a son of God. 

vii. Burial, Resurrection, and Apostolic Mission. 

55. Now there were a number of women there, look- M 

ing on from a distance, women who had Mk 15:40-47 
followed Jesus from Galilee ministering to 

56. him. Among these were Mary of Magdala, 
Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and 

57. the mother of the sons of Zebedee. And 
when evening came, a rich man from Ari- 
mathea whose name was Joseph, himself a 

58. disciple of Jesus, approached Pilate and 
asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate 
ordered that the body be delivered to him. 

59. So he took down the body of Jesus, wrapped 

60. it in a clean sheet, and put it in his own new 
tomb which he had cut in the rock. And 
when he had rolled a great stone against 
the entrance of the tomb he went away. 

61. And Mary of Magdala and the other Mary 
were there, sitting opposite the tomb. 

62. On the next day, that is, on the day after the P(0?) 

Preparation, the chief priests and the Phar- 

63. isees came in a body to Pilate saying, Sir, 
we recall that that impostor while alive 
said, After three days I shall be raised up. 

64. Give orders, therefore, for the tomb to be 
kept secure till the third day, lest his dis- 
ciples come and steal him away and then 



334 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

tell the people, He is risen from the dead. 

The end of the fraud will then be worse 

27:65. than the beginning. Pilate says to them, 

Take a guard of soldiers, go and make it 

66. as safe as you know how. So they went 

away and made the tomb secure, setting a 

seal on the stone and establishing the guard. 

28:1. At the close of the sabbath, when the day was M 

dawning which begins the week, Mary Mk 16:1-8 

of Magdala and the other Mary came to 

2. look at the tomb. And lo, a great earth- R 
quake had taken place. For an angel of the 

Lord had come down from heaven and had 
come up and rolled away the stone and 

3. was sitting on it. His appearance was like 
lightning and his garments white as snow, 

4. and from fear of him the sentries shook and 

5. became like dead men. This angel ad- 
dressed the women saying, Have no fear; I 
know that you are looking for Jesus who 

6. was crucified. He is not here, for he has 
been raised up as he said. Come, see the 

7. place where he lay. And go quickly and 
tell his disciples that he has been raised 
from the dead; and lo, he is going before 
you into Galilee, there you will see him. 

8. Lo, I have told you. So they ran quickly 
from the tomb with fear and great joy to 

9. bring word to his disciples. And P(N?) 

lo, Jesus met them, saying, Hail! And they 

came up and caught hold of his feet and 
10. did him obeisance. Then Jesus says to 
them: Have no fear! Go and tell my dis- 
ciples to go into Galilee and they will see 
me there. 

11. Now while they were on the way lo, some mem- P(0?) 

bers of the guard went into the city and 
reported to the chief priests all that had 

12. happened. So when they had met with 
the elders and taken counsel they gave 
the soldiers a considerable sum of money, 

13. bidding them say, His disciples came by 
night and stole him away while we were 

14. asleep. If this comes to the ears of the 
governor (they added), we will use persua- 
sion with him and keep you out of trouble. 

15. So they took the money and did as they 
were instructed; and this story is dissem- 



THE EPILOGUE 335 



inated among the Jews down to the present 
day. 

28:16. So the eleven disciples journeyed to Galilee, 
to the mountain where Jesus had arranged 

17. to meet them. And when they saw him they 
did him obeisance, though some were in 

18. doubt. But Jesus came up to them and 
said, Full authority has been given to me in 

19. heaven and on earth. Go and make dis- 
ciples of all nations, baptizing them into 
the name of the Father and of the Son and 

20. of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to keep all 
the commandments I have laid on you. Lo, 
I will be with you all the time, to the very 
end of the world. 



PART IV 
THE THEMES OF MT 



THEME I 
THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 

THE first of Mt's five Discourses is framed to meet the needs of the 
neophyte, who must be instructed in what is designated by Paul "the 
law of Christ," by Jas. "the perfect law of liberty," and by Jn "the 
new commandment" that we "have from him, that he who loveth 
God love his brother also." It is clear that the so-called Sermon on 
the Mount of Mt 5-7 aims to give more specific application to the 
comprehensive principle expressed in these general terms by bringing 
Christian practice into comparison with the Law of Moses. 

The Christian community for which the Discourse is framed is 
preponderantly Jewish in derivation and takes great offense at the 
"lawlessness" of many Gentile-christian churches among which the 
"scandal" which had elicited the rebukes of Paul had been repeated 
and aggravated by abuse of the Pauline principle "all things are 
lawful." The Pastoral Epistles, with Jas. and Jude, give us a glimpse 
into this demoralization. 

Mt has framed his Gospel with these conditions in view. In his 
so-called Sermon on the Mount he has combined a series of sayings 
and discourses of Jesus in the framework of Mk's account of the 
beginning of Jesus' preaching throughout Galilee of repentance in 
view of the Coming (4:17-25 = Mk 1:14-39), aiming to show what 
this repentance in view of the Coming involves. The material, nearly 
all derived from S, consists of two or three extended Q discourses 
expanded by the insertion of some briefer logia interpretatively 
elaborated by R himself. The Sermon further receives from him 
special direction and application to current conditions by expansion 
near the beginning (5:13-20) and the close (7:13-23). 

It belongs to the task of biblical theology of the Gospels to analyze 
this material by means of the Lukan parallels, determining so far as 
possible its original form, context and application, and thus to bring 
Jesus' own teaching on the topics concerned into comparison with 
the special application of them effected by R mt to meet the needs 
and conditions of 90-95 A.D. What these were we have endeavored 
to determine in Part I. The particular motives effective in the compo- 
sition of Mt's first Book (chh. 3-7) have been discussed in Part II. 
We may therefore now limit ourselves to a discussion of the actual 
teaching of Jesus on the topics selected by Mt, premising that the 

339 



340 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

selection and adaptation are the evangelist's, and may not be taken 
to represent the historic fact until every critical means has been em- 
ployed to distinguish between the later adaptation and the original. 

For the purposes of this distinction several sources are available. 
Besides the self-consistency which must be assumed between different 
utterances of the great Teacher himself, we have for nearly all the 
elements of the Sermon the independent report of Lk, and for much 
of the teaching, including the very important factor of occasion and 
situation, the earlier and more authentic narrative of Mk. The 
great Q discourses on (1) Filial Righteousness (5:3 f., 6, 10-12, 43- 
48; 7:1-5, 18, 24-27), (2) Abiding Wealth (6:19-21, 25-33), and (3) 
Prayer (6:9-13; 7:7-11) are paralleled (1) in Lk 6:20-49, (2) in Lk 
12:22-34, and (3) in Lk 11:1-4, 9-13. With these resources available 
the task of the biblical theologian is far from hopeless. The essential 
teaching of Jesus on at least the three major topics may be distin- 
guished with considerable confidence from the special application 
which has been given it by Mt. Our plan will naturally be to deter- 
mine first from the Q parallels and such additional evidence as is 
elsewhere available the basic principles of Jesus on the principal 
topic concerned, thereafter accounting for Mt's supplementary mate- 
rial and adaptation in accordance with the known propensities and 
methods of this evangelist. 



Mt naturally chooses as the nucleus for his first great Discourse 
the extended utterance which in Lk 6:20-49 appears as an address 
to Jesus' adherents congratulating them as heirs of the coming king- 
dom, and presenting its principles in contrast to those of the ungodly 
world as those which if consistently applied produce sure fruits, 
giving a rock foundation to human life. The occasion is determined 
for both Mt and Lk by Mk's account of the withdrawal of Jesus and 
his following from the synagogues in consequence of Pharisaic hostil- 
ity, and the general nature of the discourse, which formulates a new 
standard for the conduct of life, corroborates this placing. Jesus 
could hardly advance to the point of proposing a new ethic while 
still on terms of friendly co-operation with the leaders of the Syna- 
gogue. Therefore the address cannot be placed early in the ministry. 
His disciples are already a separate body. On the other hand he would 
be naturally impelled to define his principles, if he intended to hold 
together his following as a true brotherhood of "sons and daughters 
of the Highest," very shortly after the breach with the Synagogue 
occurred. We may therefore accept the occasion on which Mt and 
Lk agree as substantially correct. 

The great difference between the two reports of the discourse 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 341 

appears in the epitome just made of Lk 6:20-49. Lk presents the 
principles of the kingdom-seekers "in contrast to those of the ungodly, 
world." Mt presents them in contrast with "the righteousness of 
the scribes and Pharisees" (5:2Q). 1 In view of what we can clearly 
determine of the special situation, propensities, and method of R mt 
this particular application of the discourse by R mt may be largely 
discounted, even while we make allowance also for the catholicizing 
tendencies of the Gentile evangelist Lk. Something, however, will 
remain of the anti-Pharisaism so characteristic of Mt. 

The radical belligerency of Mk against Jewish legalism in toto 
(cf. Mk 2:1-3:6; 7:1-23; 10:1-52) is incompatible with the references 
of Paul to Jesus' conciliatory attitude (Rom. 14:18-22; 15:8; I Cor. 
11:1; Gal. 4:4 f.) ; nevertheless the breach with the Synagogue leaders 
unquestionably did take place. Jesus may not be responsible for 
the exact language of the stanza added by Mt from Ecclus. 51 to the 
Hymn of the Calling of the Sons of God in Mt 11 :29 f ., but he surely 
did offer to his followers another "yoke" than that of the scribes. 
He surely did give a "new commandment" as even Paul bears wit- 
ness (Rom. 13:8-10), and the foundation of this new ethic was the 
doctrine of divine Fatherhood with its corollary of human brother- 
hood. In Mk 12 :28-31 this summary of the Law is laid down no less 
clearly than in Paul and Jn. It is an inference, and a logical one, 
from the doctrine of sonship, Jesus' ideal of the Kingdom. There- 
fore the teaching of the discourse on Filial Righteousness stands on 
the strongest possible foundation. Jesus surely did offer a new ethic 
to his followers, contrasting it with that which others (including 
their former teachers of the Synagogue) might offer. He congratu- 
lated them on the Kingdom in store for them as "sons and daughters 
of the Highest." He made this principle basic for the entire conduct 
of life. It was to be a rock foundation; any other would be mere sand. 

We have, therefore, essential agreement between the two extant 
reports as to the outline and substance of the discourse on Filial 
Righteousness, just as we have found agreement as to its general 
place, date, and occasion. It was addressed to Jesus' following in 
Galilee, a following largely composed of the "people of the soil" 
(am-ha-aretz) and the "unchurched" (airoavva.yu'voC), resistant to 
Pharisean orthodoxy. It took place after a crisis in Jesus' relations 
with the Synagogue which compelled him to withdraw with this 
motley following to the open country at the lake-shore. 

1 Cf. Stanton, GHD, II, p. 104. The Gome-outers of Mt revolt against the 
Synagogue, those of Lk against the mammon-worshipping world. Hence the Lukan 
Beatitudes oppose external conditions of hardship, whereas, in Mt the traits 
extolled are moral and spiritual as against unreal, e.g., inward (vs. ceremonial) 
purity. 



342 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The discourse began with beatitudes upon the proletarian crowd 
which had welcomed his "gospel of the kingdom," many of whom, 
no doubt, had already been "baptized with the baptism of John." 
This crowd had welcomed Jesus as a worthy successor to the 
"prophet." It was a crowd thoroughly representative of the Galilean 
"people of the soil" (am-ha-aretz) , peasants, fishermen, artisans of 
Jesus' own class, the masses of this rural and small-town district. 
For as yet Galilee was very imperfectly subjugated by the book- 
religion of the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem. Its people were 
still restive under the exacting yoke of the Synagogue, but were 
now deeply stirred by the "prophet" voices of John and of Jesus. 
"Galilee of the Gentiles," or, as we should say, "half -heathen" 
Galilee, a district forcibly converted to Judaism of the Ezra type less 
than 200 years before, had flocked out after the "prophet" of Naza- 
reth, who now had been placed under the unofficial ban of the Syna- 
gogue authorities. Jesus meets them with a solemn and repeated 
assurance that the kingdom of God is meant for them not for the 
rich, the prosperous, the self-satisfied, high in the esteem of the world. 
"Rejoice, ye poor, ye sinners, ye despised, for the coming kingdom is 
meant for you." 

After this exordium followed a new Torah, an ethic of Filial Right- 
eousness having relation to Synagogue standards analogous to that 
of Amos or Micah to the priestly. The authority of the representa- 
tives of book religion, the scribe and his "blind" follower the Phari- 
see, had at last come into collision with a new authority revived from 
the glorious and cherished past, the authority of the prophet. 

The rule of "book religion" had been "until John"; since then 
the kingdom of God had been preached and "men of violence" (as 
these Gome-outers were called by the orthodox who stood aloof from 
the repentance of John) were taking it for their own, refusing to be 
excluded by those who claimed to hold its keys. The clash of author- 
ity reached its climax in unconcealed murmurs of the scribes against 
Jesus' unqualified assurances of forgiveness, and Pharisaic objections 
to his free mode of life, his neglect of the ordinances and his associa- 
tion with the class excluded from the Synagogue. Some even averred 
that there were plots between the Pharisees and the tyrant who had 
imprisoned John to take the life of John's successor. At all events 
the breach had now come between Jesus and the Synagogue. What 
would he put in place of the book religion of organized Mosaism? 
What had the new prophet to offer as against the scriptures of "the 
Law and the prophets"? 

It is this irrepressible conflict which comes to the surface in the 
main body of the discourse whose subject we define as Filial Right- 
eousness. Over against it Mt sets in contrast "the righteousness of 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 343 

the scribes and Pharisees." This background, or foil, exaggerated 
by our anti-Pharisaic evangelist, has almost disappeared from Lky. 
whose Gentile readers were more concerned with the contrast between 
the Church and the world than between Church and Synagogue. 
Yet even without the foil the sense and application of the great 
teaching is unmistakable, and unmistakably characteristic. Jesus 
speaks with the authority of the prophet for the prophet's ideal: 
"What doth Jehovah require of thee but to do justly and to love 
mercy and to walk humbly with thy God?" Walking humbly with 
God Jesus interprets to mean putting absolute trust in the Father 
in heaven and showing the justice and mercy that He shows. It is 
the simple, genuine religion of the Galilean "man of the soil," who 
looks up with trust to the Giver of rain and fruitful seasons, and 
shows kindness to his neighbor whether reckoned among the regis- 
tered "sons and daughters of Abraham" or not. Alas, untaught, 
"half-heathen" Galilee! But like other great reform movements 
in religion, that of John and Jesus struck backward and downward 
to the great tap-root of the innate moral and religious instinct of man. 
John spoke for the everlasting God of Righteousness, Jesus for the 
Father in heaven. 

The closing section of the discourse is an application of its perme- 
ating principle. Once more, while we must certainly discount both 
special interests of Mt, his abhorrence of "the hypocrites" of the 
Synagogue on the one side and of the "false prophets" who teach 
"lawlessness" on the other, we shall do well to remember, despite 
the non-appearance of this element in Lk, that the foil of book re- 
ligion is to be seen in the background of the application but little 
less clearly than in the earlier parts of the discourse. The principle 
of Filial Righteousness is to be applied not in censorious judgment 
of others but in self-development (Mt 7:l-5 = Lk 6:37 f., 41 f.). 
Moreover this self-development is not an external business of accumu- 
lating "good works" which may merit reward, but an inward renova- 
tion which makes them flow from the heart as naturally as vine and 
fig tree bear their fruit (Mt 7:16 f., 21 =Lk 6:43-46). With an inward 
disposition thus conformed to that of the great Giver of Good the 
follower of the new prophecy will have an ethic not liable to lead 
astray. 

The conclusion of the discourse is a parable, framed like the Beati- 
tudes for the encouragement of the "little flock." To shape one's 
life on the principle of the filial attitude toward God, the brotherly 
toward man, is to build on the rock. To disregard or flout this princi- 
ple is to build on the sand (Mt 7:24-27=Lk 6:47-49). 2 

2 With this practical application of the ethic of sons it is instructive to compare 
the emphasis laid by Epictetus on his ethic as an applied rule of life. 



344 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

There exist but two possible tests for the historicity of this dis- 
course: its agreement or disagreement with the historical situation 
as described by Mk; and its agreement or disagreement with the 
religious teaching of Jesus on other occasions as most fully reported 
in the Second Source. Both these tests result in a verdict of confirma- 
tion which can scarcely fall short of unanimity among those best qual- 
ified to judge. 

Mk does not report the discourse but tells the circumstances. 
Jesus had taken up the message of the imprisoned prophet and 
preached "the gospel of God" in the synagogues throughout Galilee, 
saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: 
repent ye, and believe in the glad tidings" (Mk 1:15). The "author- 
ity" and freedom of this revival of prophecy had aroused the opposi- 
tion of the Synagogue leaders until Jesus and his following had been 
obliged to withdraw almost in a body, though not, as yet, an organized 
body. The Gospels differ as to whether any besides earlier disciples 
of John had been baptized. If so, the baptism was simply "John's 
baptism" with water unto repentance. It merely set apart those 
who received it as "a people prepared for the Coming" by repentance, 
an "inner circle" with reference to the indifferent masses, but quite 
markedly an outer circle with reference to the Synagogue, whose 
standard of "preparedness" was different. Mk shows us, not indeed 
with the definiteness of the historian supplied with firsthand testi- 
mony, but with quite sufficient clearness, that such was the relation 
of Speaker and following, on the one hand to the Synagogue, on the 
other to the movement of John. 

As to the contents of the discourse Mk thinks he has told enough 
in describing the teaching of Jesus in general terms as "the gospel of 
God," adding only that Jesus proclaimed: "The kingdom of God is 
at hand, repent and put your trust in Him." We must turn to Q for 
further light on the contents of this earliest message. 

In view of the fact that "the beginning of the gospel" was con- 
fessedly a renewal of the prophetic message of the Baptist, carried 
into Galilee by the imprisoned prophet 's successor, it is most impor- 
tant to know what John meant by his message and the rite accompany- 
ing it, a rite to which Jesus himself had submitted. 

The rite evidently did set apart "a people prepared for the Com- 
ing." Along with the Pharisees "the disciples of John" were already 
at this time a recognized factor among the religious-minded of Galilee 
(Mk2:18). Both groups were forward-looking. Both called for moral 
reformation in view of the Day of Jehovah. But it is clear from the 
Q report of the preaching of John, with or without the expansion of 
Lk 3:10-14 describing the nature of that "repentance" to which he 
summoned specifically "tax-collectors" and "soldiers" as well as the 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 345 

people in general, that John 's preaching was not rooted in the teach- 
ing of the scribes. John was "a prophet." His message was as little 
confined by the particularism of the Synagogue as that of an Amos or 
a Malachi. There is almost a tone of contempt for the preparedness of 
Pharisaism in the words: "Think not to say to yourselves, We are 
sons of Abraham. I tell you God is able to raise up sons of Abraham 
out of these stones. Bring forth fruits such as repentance requires, 
for even now the axe lies at the root of the tree. God's threshing-floor 
is soon to be visited and His wheat will be garnered. But there is 
chaff also. The chaff will be burnt up with unquenchable fire." 

Both John's prophetic message and his prophetic "authority" 
had reappeared in the preaching of Jesus. Also the disdain of par- 
ticularism and book righteousness. Jesus' Father in heaven, like the 
God of the prophets, was the God of all outdoors. Had the discourse on 
Filial Righteousness lacked this bigness and simplicity of the dis- 
course of John we must have questioned its derivation from the 
Nazarene on whom the mantle of John had fallen. 

But we must also have questioned its authenticity if it had failed 
to show the new feature which Jesus himself brings out, a feature 
characteristic of his own message in distinction from that of John. 
The message of John was a warning of judgment to come, harsh and 
austere like the wailing of funeral pipes or the denunciation of 
Jonah's woes upon guilty Nineveh. By comparison Jesus' message 
of glad tidings to the meek, release from the bondage of the Strong 
man armed, forgiveness to the penitent, was like the song of wedding 
festivities, a voice of the tender and pleading "Wisdom of God" 
seeking to save men from their follies. It was a "gospel." Had Jesus 
not begun by confirming these glad tidings to the poor who had flocked 
around him from the Galilean countryside had his welcome not been 
voiced in something like these sublime Beatitudes, we must have 
thought the discourse itself lacked something of Jesus ' characteristic 
note. As Jas. reminds his readers, the essence of this "gospel" had 
been: "God chose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in 
faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to them that 
love Him." The "perfect law of liberty" was uttered to such "little 
ones" as these. 

All parts of the discourse alike, exordium, theme and application, 
are visibly dominated by the characteristic feature of Jesus' religious 
thought, his unswerving faith in the all-wise, all-loving, all-controlling 
Father in heaven. It is the same triumphant faith in God illustrated 
in the symbol-story of the Temptations that appears also in the 
Beatitudes, in the New Ethic of Sons, and in its Application, the 
parable of the house built on the rock. Both witnesses, the Q stories 
of John and Jesus from the beginning of the Teaching Source, and the 



346 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

story of the Great Commandment from the end of the public ministry 
as narrated by Mk, combine to confirm the claim of the discourse on 
Filial Righteousness to reflect the very heart of the religion of Jesus. 

* 

11 

In the introductory analysis of the discourse of Mt's first Book we 
found occasion to observe that besides introducing into the main body 
of the discourse the substance of two other extended discourses from S, 
one on Abiding Wealth, the other on Prayer, Mt has expanded the 
Beatitudes to double their original number, giving all but the last the 
form of commandments, by obedience to which admission may be won 
to the joys of the kingdom. He makes them anti-Pharisaic admoni- 
tions: "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom," 
"Blessed are the meek" (cf. 23:1-12), "Blessed are the inwardly 
pure" (cf. 15:1-14). He has also prefixed to the section on Imitation 
of the Divine Goodness an exordium (5:13-16) compounded by himself 
from a number of brief logia urging the necessity of "good works, " to- 
gether with an apologia defining Jesus ' attitude toward "the Law and 
the prophets " as wholly constructive (verses 17-20). It was also made 
probable that the same compiler has used at least one other discourse 
from S (omitted by Lk) to expand the discourse on Filial Righteous- 
ness, this discourse (Filial Worship, 6 :1-18) being itself expanded by 
an extract (verses 9-13) from the Q discourse on Prayer. 3 For Mt's 
purpose it was essential to supply full directions to the catechumen, 
so far as reports of Jesus' teaching allowed, of how Christian worship 
and religious observance should surpass that of "the hypocrites." 
Both in form and substance this summary of religious observance 
truly acceptable to "the Father that seeth in secret," in contrast with 
the externalities of Pharisaism, gives every indication of authenticity, 
and in spite of its non-appearance in Lk might well be derived from S. 
For while its present position, separating 5:43-48 from its proper 
sequel in 7:1 &., cannot well be original, the very fact that R mt has 
contrived to fit into it by means of verses 7 f . and 14 f . a part of the Q 
discourse on Prayer goes to show that the remainder (6:1-4, 5-8, 16- 
18) was a unit in the source. Lk might well omit material so ex- 
clusively Jewish-christian in interest, while we, for similar reasons, 
may also temporarily disregard the discourse on Prayer hi our in- 
vestigation of Jesus' relation to the Law. 

Whatever its source the authenticity of the discourse on Spiritual 
Worship is impregnable. As before the characteristic note is inward- 
ness. Jesus brings to bear his own sense of a filial relation to the 
heavenly Father, contrasting this with the empty observances which 

3 See Appended Note VIII. 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 347 

the gaping multitude considers to be adding to the Pharisee's store 
of merit and "reward in heaven." 

The question may be left open whether with Hawkins to regard 
the Antitheses of the Higher Righteousness prefixed to the exhorta- 
tion to imitate the Divine Goodness in 5:21-37 (this section itself 
expanded by several supplements) as originally part of the S dis- 
course on Filial Righteousness. Lk might have omitted it as offering 
too ready a handle to opponents of the Old Testament. We might, 
on the other hand, with McNeile, consider the substance of it (apart 
from such Q supplements as verses 25 f. = Lk 12:57-59 and the re- 
daction) as drawn from some unknown written source of similar 
character to S. As before in the case of 6:1-18 the material will be 
recognized either way as authentic. Moreover the sayings correctly 
reflect Jesus' attitude toward the written Law. They must therefore 
be taken into consideration as testimony of value in spite of the 
silence of Lk. 

Indeed, for determination of the question of Jesus' relation to the 
Mosaic Law the discourse on Filial Righteousness offers far more 
to the enquirer than Mt's supplements from the Q discourses on 
Abiding Wealth (6:19-34 expanded by insertion of Q material 
in verses 22-24 = Lk 11:34-36 and 16:13) and on Prayer (6:9-13 = Lk 
11:2-4 and 7:7-ll = Lk 11:9-13). The former of these is interjected 
by Mt after the phrase "The Father that seeth in secret will reward 
thee," as giving further assurance of heavenly reward. The latter, 
standing immediately before the editorial summary of "the Law and 
the prophets" (7:12 = Lk 6:31) has apparently a similar function in 
Mt's intention. "Your heavenly Father will give good things to them 
that ask Him" serves as a promise of reward to the obedient. It is 
habitual with Mt to introduce, whether from his written sources or 
from any other, such sanctions of the commandment. These well- 
attested discourses of Jesus have the highest value, but as they are 
not directly concerned in their original connection with the subject 
of his New Ethic we may follow Lk in reserving them for treatment 
in their proper context. 

There remains as the authentic nucleus about which Mt has built 
up his great discourse on the New Torah of Jesus the Q material which 
in Lk 6:20-49 appears as an address to the disciples and the Galilean 
multitude after Jesus' withdrawal from the Synagogue, and the dis- 
course on Inward Worship. The address first congratulates his 
followers as the true heirs of the coming kingdom, thereafter lays 
down the principle of imitation of the Father's goodness as the true 
basis of moral conduct, and lastly applies this to individual life. For 
the discourse on Inward Worship we must refer to Appended Note 
VIII. It is doubtful whether we should add it to that on Filial Right- 



348 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

eousness on the basis of Mt's testimony alone, but the latter at least 
presents a characteristic contrast between the precepts of book 
religion as taught by the scribes, and the divine standard of God's 
goodness as actually experienced. The discourse on Inward Worship 
may belong to a different context; but for the ethic of Jesus we must 
compare all reliable testimony in order properly to distinguish be- 
tween the actual position taken by him with reference to the Law, 
and the special development of this teaching set forth by Mt in his 
endeavor to direct the Church aright between the Scylla of Phari- 
saism and the Charybdis of Hellenistic libertinism. 

iii 
A leading English scholar has recently observed: 

The question of Christ's relation to the Jewish Law is one of funda- 
mental importance for the origin of Christianity, but at the same time of 
peculiar difficulty. 

Among the difficulties which he enumerates not the least is this: 

When we consider how bitter was the strife which this question aroused 
in the primitive Church the misgiving is not unreasonable that this may 
have been reflected back into the life of the Founder, and sayings placed 
in his mouth endorsing one of the later, partisan views. 

Comparative study of the Gospels has in fact established certain 
differences of representation on this point corresponding to those 
apparent between the other New Testament writings. We have 
already denned the distinctive standpoint of Mt, and must now en- 
deavor to bring it into just comparison with the witness of other 
sources. 

Mk has three sections which bear upon the question of Jesus and 
the Law: (1) the series of anecdotes in 2:1-3:6 relating the growth 
of opposition to Jesus' work of preaching and healing in Galilee on 
the part of the scribes and Pharisees, a series which culminates in 
Jesus' withdrawal with his following from the Synagogue; (2) the 
section appended to the Galilean ministry in 6:56-8;26 relating 
Jesus' work among Gentiles and in Perea, whose opening paragraph 
(7:1-23) describes his controversy with certain scribes who had come 
down from Jerusalem over the Mosaic distinctions of "clean" and 
"unclean"; (3) the group of anecdotes in 10:1-45 on the issue of Law 
versus Grace. We may take these up in order, seeking an unpreju- 
diced appreciation of Mk's distinctive point of view. 

1. In the group Mk 2:1-3:6 the reader is told how the scribes and 
Pharisees objected successively to Jesus' proclamation of forgive- 
ness, his association with tax-collectors and sinners, his disregard 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 349 

of the set fasts, and the laxity shown both by himself and his followers 
in the matter of sabbath observance. In this series of anecdotes Mk 
does not attempt to define the constructive teaching of Jesus 4 but 
treats the issue as a question of bald authority. Because Jesus is 
the Son of Man, and can prove by miracle the divine source of his 
mission, the scribes have no right to object. The Son of Man has 
authority, even while still on earth, to forgive sins, disregard the 
prescribed ordinances, and even, on occasion, to set aside the sab- 
bath. This defiant attitude of Jesus toward the Law leads the Phari- 
sees to conspire with the Herodians against his life. 

2. The second of Mk's sections on Jesus and the Law comes nearer 
to a discussion of the matter on principle, though it is limited to that 
phase which brought about the great conflict of apostolic times, the 
Mosaic distinctions of "clean" and "unclean," with special applica- 
tion to the problem of preaching among Gentiles. As our discussion 
introductory to Mt's fourth Book has already involved some discus- 
sion of this historic issue of the apostolic Church, and further discus- 
sion will be involved in our treatment of the theme of this fourth 
Book below, under the title The Unity of the Church, we may 
properly limit present consideration to an enquiry into the principle 
appealed to by Mk. What was the ground taken by Jesus in justifi- 
cation of his disregard for the Mosaic ceremonial distinctions? 

3. The third Markan group bearing upon the question of Jesus and 
the Law comes nearest to a treatment of the real issue after the funda- 
mental manner of Paul, contrasting Law and Grace as alternative 
grounds for the hope of salvation. The series of anecdotes and say- 
ings in Mk 10:1-^45 presents the contrast of the Pharisean ideal of 
merit winning eternal life as its heavenly reward, with the Christian 
ideal of childlike dependence on the goodness of a Father in heaven, 
accompanied by self-dedication without reserve. The series is pref- 
aced by one of those logia which Burkitt speaks of as "doubly at- 
tested," having the support not only of Q but of Mk also. Whether 
with or without dependence on S, Mk's account of the question put 
by the Pharisees as to the Mosaic law of divorce (Mk 10:1-12) pref- 
aces the group of illustrations of Christian teachings on Merit and 
Reward in the remainder of the section with the most far-reaching 
of the utterances of Jesus in rejection of scribal authority. The brief 
and guarded reference to the same saying in Lk 16:16-18 shows 
clearly by a double reference to the authority of "the Law and the 
prophets" first as superseded (verse 16) then as unalterable (verse 
17) that Lk is at least aware of the revolutionary possibilities in- 
volved in Jesus' recognition of a human element in the Torah, which 
must be distinguished from the divine. It should be observed that 

4 The true text of Mk 2:26 ff. does not include verse 27. 



350 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Mt also, in his Q transcript of the logion (5:31 f.), ranges it under 
the series of Antitheses of the Higher Law which contrast even the 
moral commandments of Moses' law with the inward righteousness 
required of the follower of Jesus. 

In all three of these Markan groups Jesus is shown hi revolt against 
the institutions of Mosaism. In the first he claims authority to dis- 
regard fasts and sabbaths, in the second he "makes all meats clean," 
hi the third he declares marital relations explicitly permitted by the 
Torah to be "adultery." It hardly needs the contemptuous tone in 
which the Roman evangelist dismisses the "washings of cups and 
pots and brazen vessels" practiced (so he declares) by "the Pharisees 
and all the Jews" to convince us that his sympathies are thoroughly 
Gentile. On the other hand the skill and ingenuity with which Mt, 
our "scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven," has adjusted 
this Markan radicalism to an attitude of entire loyalty to the eternal 
and divine commandment of Moses, however free from scribal au- 
thority in matters of interpretation, is no less remarkable than his 
extreme reluctance to depart from Mk's general outline of the minis- 
try to the extent practiced by Lk. Except for the teachings supplied 
from S the Petrine anecdotes of Mk, though not their Markan order, 
seem to hold for Mt a place of unique authority. 

The first group of Markan stories of conflict between Jesus and the 
synagogue authorities over fasts and Sabbaths is not retained by 
Mt as a group. As respects the appointed fasts Mt's view does not 
differ appreciably from Mk's. To both evangelists these observances 
practiced by the Pharisees and the disciples of John belong to an 
obsolete past, they are mere patches on an old garment whose rent 
is only made worse by the unprescribed addition. 

If we may attempt to define the ground actually taken by Jesus 
in distinction from the report of both evangelists, it was certainly not 
the mere difference of times and seasons assumed to be basic in 
Mk 2:19 f. = Mt 9:15 and Didache viii, 1. It is more likely to have 
rested on the prophetic principle expressed in Is. 58:3-7 and that 
of inward worship set forth in Mt 6:16-18. 

As respects sabbath observance Mt endorses Mk's claim of "au- 
thority over the sabbath" for the Son of Man, but removes the two 
instances of alleged sabbath breaking to another context (12:1-14= 
Mk 2:23-3:6), and attaches supplements to both (verses 5-7 and 
11 f.) whose purpose is to show that Jesus' action was fully justified 
by precedent as an entirely proper application of the law. Mt is a 
well-informed scribe, Mk is not. 

Mk's second group, as we have seen, restricts consideration to the 
laws of "clean and unclean," using the S q logion contrasting outward 
with inward purity to support the radical assertion that Jesus "made 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 351 

all meats clean." In reality Mk's radical comment is no more than 
his own sweeping version of Q (Mt 23:26 = Lk 11:41). But it is no 
surprise to find this Markan comment on the saying lacking in Mt's 
transcription. It might to some be a surprise, however, to find Mt 
apparently endorsing the distinction between divine requirement 
and human, expressed in Mk's quotation from Is. 29:13 "In vain 
do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines precepts of men." 
Mt holds in fact that the logion does not discriminate between the 
"weightier matters of the Law" relating to moral conduct and the 
ceremonial distinctions and observances so frequently subordinated 
by the prophets, but only between the Torah itself and the oral law, 
or "tradition of the elders," the latter alone being "man-made." 

It is difficult to see what object can be subserved by Mt's trans- 
position of verses 9-13 of the Markan story, and especially by his 
addition of the reference to the "hedge of the Law" as a "planting 
which my heavenly Father hath not planted " in verses 12-14, unless 
he intends to draw the line between the Torah itself as inculcating 
only purity of heart, and the food laws as of human devising. But 
as we have seen this is precisely the "Petrine" standpoint of Acts 
10:1-11:18, as against the Jacobean of Acts 15-28. 

Mt's real difficulty lies with a further utterance addressed to the 
people appended by Mk after the colloquy with the scribes over the 
"tradition of the elders" about ablutions is ended. This is Mk's 
interpretation (verses 17-23), of Jesus' repudiation of the tradition 
(the ablutions were a practice introduced since the time of Hillel and 
Shammai) and his application of the Q logion to the food laws of 
Lev. 11 and the kindred prescriptions as to "clean" and "unclean" 
of Lev. 13-15. As McNeile very clearly states the case: 

Jesus could rebuke the scribes for annulling the Mosaic law, and yet, 
on this fundamental point, annulled it himself. He felt free to commit 
himself to this formal inconsistency, because the kernel of his teaching 
was that the spirit transcends the letter. 

As to the kernel of Jesus' teaching there will be no difference of 
opinion, but as regards the formal inconsistency we may well ques- 
tion the authenticity of that application of the logion to the Mosaic 
dietary laws which Mk makes in 7:14-23, and which Mt has taken 
over with careful modifications. This question must be considered 
shortly in view of the testimony of Paul and Lk. In the meantime 
we must continue our comparison of Mk and Mt. Each of these 
evangelists undoubtedly reflects the belief and practice of his own 
contemporary circle. 

It is true that Prophets and Psalmists alike abound with assurances 
that the only real requirement of God is of moral purity, and that 



352 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

large elements of Judaism (at least in the diaspora) treated the Le- 
vitical requirements as to food taboos either as obsolete (so in Adia- 
bene when Izates took his earlier view) or as subject to such allegoriz- 
ing interpretation as they receive in Ps-Aristeas and Ps-Barnabas 
(so in Egypt). It is also true that the story of Peter's vision at Joppa, 
which in Acts 10:1-11 :18 paves the way for a decision of the Church 
endorsing Gentile missions conducted without regard for distinctions 
of "clean" and "unclean," also takes the ground that these are "man- 
made." God makes all food "clean," it is a purely human device 
to reject certain foods, or men, as "common" or "unclean." And yet 
it is insupposable that either the Petrine source of Acts 10:1-11:18 
or our Mt can have intended to justify those heretical Jewish sects 
of the Clementina who anticipated modern criticism in applying 
the knife to the Books of Moses, maintaining that certain portions 
were unauthentic. If Mt intends the designation "precepts of men" 
to apply only to the unwritten law, he may, like Ps-Barnabas, have 
considered the interpretation of the Levitical food-laws as obligatory 
in their literal sense on all Jews to be contrary to the divine intention, 
an unwarranted imposition of the scribes supported by their blind 
followers the Pharisees. He may on the other hand have regarded 
them as frankly obsolete. 

Two considerations make the former explanation improbable: 
(1) Mt gives no indication elsewhere of the Alexandrian method of 
allegorizing exegesis; (2) other Matthean passages such as 5:17-19, 
and especially the remainder of the section which transcribes Mk's 
on Jesus among Gentiles, wherein Peter is solemnly endowed with 
authority to "bind and loose" (16:19), indicate that Mt concurs 
with Acts 10:1-11:18 in ascribing the solution of this crucial problem 
of the apostolic Church to the bold action of Peter, who, previous to 
his weakening before the delegates from James at Antioch, had treated 
the dietary laws as "precepts of men," and had obtained the appro- 
bation of at least an important element of the Church for his action. 

The principal changes in Mt's transcription of Mk 7:14-23 are: 

(1) the insertion of verses 12-14 condemning the "hedge of the Law" 
at a point which we must admit suggests the intention to include the 
dietary laws as no more than part of the "tradition of the elders"; 

(2) the substitution of "Peter" for "the disciples" as author of the 
request for explanation (verse 15 = Mk 7:17); (3) the addition to the 
closing summary (verse 20 = Mk 7:23) of the negative clause "but 
eating with unwashed hands does not defile the man." This return to 
the original point at issue indicates that to Mt's understanding of the 
matter Jesus had never really left it. Mt holds that it is the ablutions 
alone which are here primarily concerned and cancels Mk 's comment 
on the saying about inward and outward cleansing because he does not 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 353 

agree to it. In other words he understands the saying not to abolish 
but to subordinate the outward. Peter, in due time, will receive 
authority to ( " loose" this "least commandment of the Law." 

We have still to consider Mt's treatment of the Pharisees' enquiry 
as to the law of divorce, a narrative which introduces Mk's third and 
most important group on Jesus and the Law. Mk elaborates the 
story with great freedom in the interest of his own application. 
However, the emphasis unquestionably falls in every form upon the 
distinction between human and divine authority, "What, therefore, 
God hath joined together let not man put asunder." 

In this case there was no escape for Mt by resort to the merely human 
authority of the "tradition of the elders." Nor does he seek it. He 
accepts the distinction between a divine and a human element in the 
Law. Indeed he had both accepted and emphasized it in the Antith- 
eses of the first Discourse. To quote the Decalogue seriatim ac- 
companying each citation with a more searching requirement under 
the rubric "But I say" was to admit that mere "law-righteousness" 
was not enough. On the other hand this admission need not in the 
least imply imperfection in the Law, but only (and this is clearly the 
true meaning of the logion) that not all parts of it have the same ob- 
ject in view. What to Jesus are "the weightier matters of the Law" 
are addressed to the individual Israelite that he may become "perfect 
as the Father in heaven is perfect." Other portions give directions for 
the priests in the conduct of the temple service, still others are for the 
use of magistrates in the repression of crime and administration of 
justice. 

In the regulation of the family "Moses" gives two utterances. The 
ideal is expressed in the Creation story. Remedy for one of the great 
evils denounced by Malachi, repudiation of "the wife of thy youth," 
is applied in the Deuteronomic requirement of a certificate of divorce 
before exercising the despotic rights of the oriental husband. Mt not 
only entirely approves of the humane restriction imposed by Dt. 
24:1 as a curb on "hardness of heart, " but (contrary to the testimony 
of Paul and all other witnesses) imposes still further restrictions in the 
name of Jesus himself. According to Mt 5:32 and 19:9 Jesus in this 
instance stepped out from the domain of the prophet, whose demand 
is simply and broadly " judgment, mercy and good faith, " to enter 
that of the scribe or lawyer, placing himself this time in the stricter 
school of Shammai against the more liberal interpretation of Hillel. 
We have abundant reason for denying that Jesus ever thus consented 
to arrogate to himself functions which on other occasions he declares 
to belong to a different jurisdiction (cf. Lk 12:14). But we can only 
endorse Mt 's understanding of Jesus ' saying about the Law as against 
the application given it by Mk, both here and previously in 7:14-23. 



354 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Whatever imperfection later generations may find in the Law of 
Moses, historically it is most improbable that Jesus should have used 
toward it, or any part of it, expressions of less esteem than Paul, who 
in the very act of declaring it done away by the cross pronounces it 
"holy and righteous and good." 

If, then, judgment be called for as between Mt and Mk in their 
respective representations of Jesus and the Law the balance, in spite 
of all defects, must incline strongly in favor of Mt. Jesus' attitude 
toward the Law is consistently and uniformly that of the prophet, 
applying and teaching its "weightier" commandments. He sub- 
ordinates, but does not annul, its ritual and ceremonial requirements. 
As regards fasts he teaches that they shall be employed as expressions 
of real sorrow and contrition as between the individual soul and the 
Father that seeth in secret. For set fasts that belie the real disposition 
of the soul he has only the contemptuous epithet "hypocrisy." As 
regards sabbaths again Jesus stands with the prophets. The rabbinic 
saying "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath," 
which so well sums up the humanitarian view expressed in Dt. 5:14 f. 
and Is. 58:13, is probably not his authentic utterance, however in 
harmony with his mind. But Mt is surely right in placing Jesus 
side by side with not a few contemporary rabbis in their humanitarian 
interpretation of the sabbath, rather than Mk, who makes him over- 
ride it by superior authority attested by miracle. 

On the issue of the dietary laws and the distinctions of clean and 
unclean both evangelists agree that Jesus at first refused to extend his 
healing ministry to persons outside the pale of Judaism, but (once 
more applying the principle of "greater and less") acknowledged a 
"purification of the heart by faith" overriding the restrictions of par- 
ticularism. Both evangelists also agree that Jesus denounced the 
"traditions of the elders" respecting vows, ablutions and "many 
like things" as liable to "make the word of God of none effect." 
Mk extends this denunciation to the Levitical food laws, employing 
for the purpose a logion whose real sense will be more fully considered 
in connection with the theme of Book IV, but which will generally be 
conceded to rest upon the same basic principle of the prophets applied 
by Jesus to all such questions: subordination (not abolition) of the 
lesser matters of the Law. Mt as usual displays the utmost caution 
in alterations of Mk, but makes it reasonably clear that he does not 
share Mk's ascription of this radical step to Jesus' direct utterance. 
He applies the Isaian distinction of divine and human only to the 
Torah as against the "traditions of the elders," and in this is surely 
correct. 

Finally, in spite of his unhistorical attribution to Jesus of a further 
restriction in the humane limitation of the oriental husband's un- 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 355 

limited right of repudiation, a restriction which belongs more properly 
to the "scribe who has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven," 
Mt seems to have a better understanding than Mk of Jesus' appli- 
cation of the principle of weightier and lighter in his attitude to- 
ward the Law on its civil side. In the case of the Mosaic legislation 
on divorce, as previously in the case of the dietary laws, Mk's ac- 
count suggests, if it does not compel, the idea of the Stoic principle of 
life according to nature. 5 Human ordinances should be subordinate to 
the divine teaching given through the order of the cosmos. Un- 
deniably there is a close affinity. Nevertheless if we would not impute 
to Jesus a mode of thought not easily conceived as belonging to a 
Galilean "man of the soil" the distinction to which he is driven by the 
subtle question of the Pharisees was not that of the Stoic who refuses 
to shape his life by the conventions of current ethics and frames for 
himself a " higher law " dictated by philosophy. 

Jesus does distinguish, just as the plain New Englander distin- 
guishes, between honesty and "law-honesty." There is for him a 
higher and lower element in the Torah. All the prophets and many of 
the psalmists have pointed to it. In the story of Samuel and Saul he 
could read "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." Micah exalted 
judgment, mercy, and a humble walk with God as the sum total of 
divine requirement. Amos and Jeremiah and Isaiah repeated the 
lesson with varied emphasis that the contrivances of priest and scribe 
are a "vain worship" to offer to the Father whose real requirement 
is made known inwardly. Not science but conscience was the teacher 
of the prophets of Israel, and these in turn were the greatest teachers 
of Jesus. It is in the spirit of these teachers that he distinguishes in 
the Law, holy and righteous and good as it is, an element for the 
priest which regulates public worship, and an element for the magis- 
trate evoked by the "hardness" of men's hearts, directed to the 
curbing of the evil-minded, "made for the lawless and unruly, for the 
ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers, liars 
and perjurers." As neither priest nor lawyer Jesus is not directly 
concerned with either of these aspects. But he is directly concerned 
with another element, an element which reveals to the simple-minded 
the will of their Father in heaven. Jesus undoubtedly knew Leviticus, 
but most of his quotations are from Deuteronomy. He had read 
Ezekiel, but he revels in Isaiah. 

Mk's reason for choosing the incident of the Pharisees' Enquiry 
as to the Law of Divorce to introduce his series of teachings setting 
hi contrast the religion of merit and the religion of grace would seem 
to be the teaching of Paul, of whom the common report was that 
he "taught the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, 

6 Vivere convenienter naturae. 



356 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

telling them not to circumcise their children nor to obey the cus- 
toms." Mk seems more concerned to justify this iconoclasm by 
putting Mosaism in a bad light than to do exact and historical jus- 
tice to the teaching of Jesus, to say nothing of Paul. But Jesus' 
reply to the Pharisees' enquiry does not really condemn the Law, 
in spite of the collocation of Lk 16:15 and 18. It only condemns the 
undiscriminating use made of it by scribes and Pharisees. Likewise 
the contrast of merit and grace in Mk 10:13-45, infinitely superior 
as it is to Mt's neo-legalistic perversion 6 may easily be read in too 
Pauline a sense. Jesus surely did oppose the legalism of scribes and 
Pharisees with a doctrine of "grace." But the word "grace" has 
by no means as yet acquired the Pauline connotation. 

Nothing could better illustrate the contrast which Jesus draws than 
the parable which Mt introduces into the heart of this context, in 
spite of the fact that he seems to give it a wrong application. With 
Paul "grace" stands opposed to "law," with Jesus to "merit." The 
incident of the Child in the Midst, of the Rich Enquirer, the apostles' 
claim of reward for Leaving All, and the parable of the Dissatisfied 
Wage-earners, all bear upon this distinction between Merit and 
"Grace." Jesus holds that eternal life and its connected blessings 
come only by "grace." Servants who have done all they were com- 
manded cannot claim a reward; they have "done that which it was 
their duty to do." Pharisees who murmur at the welcome offered 
to tax-collectors and sinners are shamed by the example of the Elder 
Son envious of the Prodigal. Those who think God has no right to 
go beyond justice are challenged by the example of the householder 
rebuking the complaining worker in the vineyard with the question: 
"Have I not a right to do as I will with my own money? Is thine 
eye envious because I am generous?" This is not the Pauline con- 
trast of Law versus grace, though it may well have led Paul to it. It 
is quite independent of "the word of the cross" in spite of the con- 
nection Mk seeks to establish by his anticipation of the logion of the 
Last Supper used as a summary in 10:45 (cf. 14:27 f. and Lk 22:27). 
It is a contrast of the "goodness" of God as the gospel ground of 
salvation with the "merit " laid down as the fruit of law-observance by 
scribes and Pharisees. A religion of "grace" of this kind was preached 
by Jesus with the fervor of a prophet in opposition to the binding 
of heavy burdens toward which he saw the book religion of the Syna- 
gogue to be drifting, and he preached it long before the shadow of 
the cross was thrown across his path. This same "simplicity that 
is in Christ" makes him the champion of the "little ones" of Galilee, 
while at the same time quite able to cope with the subtlest distinc- 
tions of the scribes. 

6 See above, p. 88. 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 357 



IV 

To sum up, then, our enquiry into Jesus' relation to the Law. It 
certainly was not in any sense an attitude of rejection or criticism, 
whether of the whole or any part. Had it been so Paul could not 
possibly have referred to his Master's ministry as a "ministry of the 
circumcision," still less have declared that he was "born of a woman, 
born under the Law that he might redeem them which were under 
the Law." Paul is completely unable to cite a single instance from the 
life of Jesus of disobedience, or disregard for the Law, else in such a 
case as the controversy over forbidden foods he would surely have 
cited the authority of Jesus, instead of taking the cross as the start- 
ing point of emancipation. To Paul this complete obedience of Jesus, 
this taking on himself the "reproach" of the people of God was just 
the proof of his worthiness to bring in the new system of "grace" 
by suffering rejection and death. Had it been otherwise "the promises 
made to the fathers" would not, to Paul's mind, have been fulfilled 
(Rom. 15:3-9). If Paul himself can cite no instance from the life of 
Jesus in support of his rejection of the Law, surely it is needless to 
enquire why the whole body of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, 
ready as they were to acknowledge that the hearts of the Gentiles 
might be "purified by faith," were horror-struck at the idea that 
"the Jews which are among the Gentiles" should be emancipated 
from the food laws. 

Jesus' attitude toward the Law is that of the great prophets and 
psalmists, of John the Baptist, and of many of the enlightened scribes 
of his time. To one of these he himself bears witness "Thou art not 
far from the kingdom of God." It was in answer to the scribe's appre- 
ciative reply, "Master, thou hast well said, and to love God with all 
the heart and understanding and strength is much more than all 
burnt offering and sacrifice." The utterance of Jesus on which this 
comment was made was an explicit avowal of the principle (by no 
means unknown to the teaching of contemporary scribes) of "greater" 
and "lesser" commandments in the Law. The complaint of Jesus 
against the tendencies of the Synagogue in his time was that it re- 
fused to apply this principle as the great prophets had applied it, 
learning their religion from the living voice of God. 

Thirdly Jesus' attitude toward the Law is supremely manifest in the 
great discourse on Filial Righteousness, uttered to his "unchurched" 
following after a final breach with the Synagogue. No book, not 
even the Law and the Prophets, can offer a sure foundation for a man's 
life except in so far as it leads him to imitate the goodness of the 
Father hi heaven, and that not outwardly but as an inborn, inbred 
disposition of the heart. But Jesus finds no contradiction between 



358 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the Law in its teaching to the simple-minded and the daily lessons 
of rain and fruitful seasons. Those who are thus taught of God are 
entitled to be called children of God. Unto them it is His unalterable 
decree to give the kingdom. 



On the issue of Jesus and the Law, or (as we may now more accu- 
rately define it) Jesus and the Torah, that "teaching" of God which 
alone can imbue the utterance with real authority, two more witnesses 
have still to be heard. For without the testimony of the third and 
fourth evangelists our constructive definition of the attitude of Jesus 
would not be complete. 

Late and remote as may be the witness of the fourth, or Hellenistic, 
Gospel as compared with the Synoptics, on so fundamental an issue 
as that of the authority of the Son of Man in comparison with that 
of the scribes its witness is not so remote as to have lost all touch 
with authentic tradition. True the element of the Galilean "men of 
the soil," that "unchurched" following of Jesus which the Synoptists 
class with the repentant "tax-collectors and sinners," has disap- 
peared from Jn, lost below the horizon. In the Hellenistic Gospel 
their place is taken by the Samaritans, who without a miracle receive 
Jesus in simple faith at his own word, acknowledging him not merely 
as "a prophet" but as "the Saviour of the World" (4:19, 39-42). 
Nevertheless, as I showed in a recent article entitled "Sources and 
Method of the Fourth Evangelist" 7 the chapter following that on 
the Samaritan ministry is devoted to a discourse on the authority 
of the Son of Man, a propos of the miracle of the Paralytic made to 
Walk. The opposition of the scribes is here carried at last to the 
point that "the Jews sought to kill him, because he not only brake 
the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself 
equal with God" (Jn 5, continued in 7:15-24), showing that this 
section is simply the Johannine equivalent for Mk 2:1-3:6. Both 
describe the Growth of Opposition to the authority claimed by Jesus 
as Son of Man. The culmination of the Johannine discourse comes 
in verses 30-47, on the "witness" borne to Jesus by Moses and Elias 
(represented by the Baptist) in addition to that of the Father, through 
the mighty works given the Son to perform. Jesus' opponents "the 
Jews" (here equivalent to "the scribes and Pharisees" of Mk) are 
denounced in verses 37-47 as champions of mere book religion, deaf 
to the living voice of God. Jesus here claims the witness of both Law 
and prophets, Moses and Elias-John, in addition to this present and 
living witness of God in "the works that the Father hath given me 

'Hitibert Journal, XXV, 1 (Oct., 1926). See also ibid. XXVIII., 1 (Oct., 1929), 
"History and Dogma in John." 



THE NEW ETHIC OF JESUS AND THE LAW 359 

to do," but declares that the use his opponents make of the Scrip- 
tures as a means of securing to themselves "eternal life" nullifies 
their real value. Instead of heeding the voice of God in them "the 
Jews" refuse to listen to the divine Messenger to whom the Scrip- 
tures point. The book religion of the Synagogue is shown here as 
bent on destroying the influence of Jesus together with all who with 
him seek to "open the Scriptures " to the multitude. In condemnation 
of such book religion nothing could be more eloquent than Jesus' 
reply to "the Jews": 

Ye have neither heard His (the Father's) voice at any time nor seen 
His form. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom He sent, 
Him ye believe not. Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in 
them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; 
and ye will not come to me that ye may have life. 

Jn has by no means wholly lost the ring of Jesus' hatred of a biblicism 
destitute of the living witness of the Spirit. 

But our chief appeal should be to L, that special source of Lk 
on which the third evangelist has drawn for those incomparable illus- 
trations of Jesus' doctrine of "grace" exemplified in the logion con- 
cerning the hopelessness of mere obedience to commandments as a 
means of accumulating "merit" (Lk 17:7-10) and the parables of the 
envious Elder Son (15:11-32) and the Pharisee and Publican (18:9-14). 
In the material drawn from this document Lk supplies us with the 
most illuminating illustration of Jesus' principle of divine Torah. 
The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37), joined for some 
reason not yet fully explained to the story of the scribe's enquiry 
for the Great Commandment of the Law (Mk 12:28-34; cf. Lk 10:25- 
28), takes up the same issue as the discourse just cited from the fourth 
Gospel, but with better appreciation of historical conditions. 

Contrary to Mk 's representation of the matter, the scribe who puts 
the question about the Great Commandment in Lk 10:25 is not one 
whom the teaching of Jesus has brought close to the threshold of "the 
kingdom of God," but a gladiator armed against the Galilean prophet 
with the net of subtle logic. Jesus' answer, appended to the citation 
of the Shem'a, is the parable, of whose authenticity, albeit no other 
report than Lk's remains, no question can be entertained, no other 
author than Jesus being even imaginable. The parable is not, however, 
an answer, as Wellhausen has seen, to the question put by the scribe, 
"Who, then, is my neighbor?" For in that case victim and rescuer 
would have to exchange parts, the victim being aided in spite of his 
being a despised and outcast Samaritan. The editorial link attaching 
the parable to the Enquiry of the Scribe (verse 29) is therefore mis- 
conceived. The question really answered is far more fundamental. 



360 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The parable of the Good Samaritan goes to the very bottom of the 
real issue between Jesus and the scribes by supplying an answer to the 
question, Who is the authoritative interpreter of the Law? 

The protagonists whom Jesus brings into the lists are not, as in 
the fourth Gospel, on the one side scribes, on the other Jesus himself, 
each claiming divine authority for the "teaching" as expounded by 
himself. Jesus sets over against one another on the one side priests 
and Levites, the official interpreters of the Law designated as such by 
the Scripture itself, on the other the ignorant, heretical, despised 
Samaritan, obedient to no Torah save the inward voice of humanity 
and mercy. The lesson is reflected in that Epistle which stands closest 
to L in the spirit of its teaching: "Who is wise and understanding 
among you? let him show by his good life his works in meekness of 
wisdom." The living Torah of a good Samaritan, on the word of 
Jesus, has more divine authority than that of priest or Levite who 
neglects "the weightier matters of the Law." It is what he finds in 
the Scriptures, not his sacerdotal or legal proficiency, which dis- 
tinguishes Jesus' attitude toward the Torah from that of the scribes. 



THEME II 
THE APOSTOLATE 



THE theme of Mt's second Book appears in both its narrative and 
discourse divisions. The compilation is intended to meet the needs 
of the itinerant "gospeller" who in the period of the Didache, some 
years if not decades later than this Gospel, still bore the title "apos- 
tle," notwithstanding the tendency to restrict it to the original Twelve 
and notwithstanding Paul's insistence on a higher sense, in which he 
himself had equal authority with the Galilean group, an apostleship 
"not from man, neither through men, but from God the Father, 
through Jesus Christ whom He raised from the dead." It is in the 
earlier, simpler,, more general sense of the itinerant evangelist, sent 
forth by the churches in the name of the Christ to preach and to heal, 
that the term is here employed. What use has Mt made, and why, 
of the traditional sayings and doings of Jesus, to prepare such "gos- 
pellers" for their task? 

The narrative Division of Book II (chh. 8 f .) consists of a series of 
ten Faith Wonders taken almost exclusively from Mk, but consider- 
ably abbreviated, and in an order adapted to Mt 's purpose regardless 
of the original context. The new grouping has been explained in our 
introductory discussion of the Book as bearing on the lesson of Faith, 
a virtue to be exercised not only by the healer but by those who seek 
his aid. This explanation is confirmed by the material added from S 
of a character not connected with miracle (8:19-22), or left standing 
in spite of its non-miraculous character in the Markan extracts 
(9:9-13). This material has value in the context because it deals with 
Jesus' call of various disciples to the work of "gospelling" and their 
various response to the hardships entailed. The sections are added 
or retained with obvious reference to the general theme of the Book. 
Mt 9:14-17, The Question of Fasting, which forms a partial exception 
to the rule, could not well be otherwise placed because of its close 
connection in Mk with the preceding context. Our present concern 
with the reconstructed agglutination is only to observe what object 
Mt would appear to have in view in this rearrangement and expansion 
of Mk. 

Two motives stand out conspicuously. The candidate for appoint- 
ment to "do the work of an evangelist" must (1) show capacity for 
that wonder-working Faith which alone can fit him for the task of 

361 



362 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

"healing every kind of sickness and disease" (9:35). He must also 
(2) be prepared to "endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus" 
(II Tim. 4:5). The example of "Matthew" forsaking the tax-col- 
lector's office to follow Jesus (9:9-13), still more the contrasted 
examples of the scribe who accepts Jesus' invitation to a Me of home- 
less wandering over against the "disciple" who wishes to postpone 
its inexorable demands till he shall have paid the last rites to an aged 
father (8:19-21), show clearly what kind of "endurance" was ex- 
pected of the gospeller in the period of Mt and the Pastoral Epistles. 
In the period of Paul the charisma of "miracles" belonged to those 
who had "all faith, so as to remove mountains" (I Cor. 13:2). Ob- 
viously the later generation still counts this "gift" among "the signs 
of an apostle," with the difference that now there is resort to the 
example of Jesus par excellence as the worker of faith-wonders. 

The ten mighty works of Jesus related consecutively in chh. 8 f. 
form thus the most appropriate possible prelude to the Discourse 
of ch. 10. They advance from simple healings in the first group 
(8:1-17) to mastery of unclean spirits (cf. Mk 3:15) in the second 
(8:18-34), and finally in 9:1-26 to actual raising of the dead to life. 
The appended two healings of blind and deaf-mute in 9:27-34 form 
something of an anti-climax, but are seemingly attached to complete 
a list of ten. We cannot safely infer from the example set that the 
Church of Mt's day encouraged its gospellers to attempt raising the 
dead in anything more than a metaphorical sense. The limitation 
of their instructions to preaching and healing (9:35) and the con- 
temporary practice of "the elders of the church" referred to in Jas. 
5:14 f., show what was expected; though claims of raising the dead 
in a literal sense were still made on behalf of apostles and elders not 
far from this time. 1 

As regards the endurance of hardship a great change is observable 
between the earliest time and that of Mt. Some of the Q sayings of 
Jesus, such as that to the willing scribe of Mt 8:19 f. set forth the 
sacrifice entailed in leaving all for the kingdom's sake. The disciple 
who sets out to "preach the kingdom of God" must expect to lead 
a homeless life. On the other hand not a few sayings make much of 
the compensations. Those who have forsaken the comforts and com- 
panionships of home in the good cause will reap a hundredfold "now 
in this present time" the affection of parents and friends, the peace- 
ful enjoyment of houses and lands, while looking to "life everlasting" 
in the world to come. Paul himself records that Jesus expected those 
that preach the gospel to live of the gospel (I Cor. 8:14), adding to 
the current maxim "the laborer is worthy of his food" employed in 
I Tim. 5:18 by a Paulinist, an appeal to Moses' prohibition of the 

1 Papias as quoted by Philip of Side (Fragment V). 



THE APOSTOLATE 363 

use of muzzles for the oxen that drag the threshing-sled over the grain 
heaped on the floor. The instance was doubly apposite because the 
technical term for the teacher employed in winnowing out from 
Scripture the spiritual food required by the people was a darshan 
("thresher"), and his instruction was called "midrash" (the "prod- 
uct of threshing"). 

Jesus too, in a saying recorded only by Lk, referred to the friendly 
and hospitable reception accorded to his messengers hi Galilee. He 
had sent them forth "without purse or hamper or shoes" depending 
on the recognized principle of Judaism in his day, that the religious 
teacher asks nothing for his services but is entitled to generous hos- 
pitality. Freedom in giving and receiving was the mark of his "lib- 
eral" profession. Jesus had appealed to this principle, deeply in- 
grained in the Jewish peasant, in behalf of his heralds of the kingdom 
of God. Results had proved that he understood the Galilean "people 
of the soil" and did not appeal to their generosity in vain. "Lacked 
ye anything" he 'asked of the disciples later, "when I thus sent you 
forth?" They answered, We lacked nothing (Lk 22:35). 

But the bitter hostility encountered in Jerusalem, soon to culminate 
in the cross, had altered all this. "Now," says Jesus to the disciples 
who are about to be scattered like sheep after the shepherd has been 
stricken down, "now let him that has purse or hamper take it with 
him, and he that has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one." 
The warning was not meant to increase the military preparedness 
of his pitiful guard in Gethsemane. It was intended to forewarn the 
Twelve of the different reception they must henceforth expect in their 
work of preaching the kingdom; for this work was still to be con- 
tinued (verses 36-38). 



11 

Not even Q is free from the intermixture of the two types of sayings 
so clearly differentiated in this logion from L. The words "Behold, 
I send you" (d7roarXXco) ; so suggestive of the title "apostle," have 
led to the inappropriate placing in Lk 10:3 as well as hi Mt 10:16 of 
the saying, "Lo, I send (dTrooreXXoo) you forth as sheep among 
wolves," an utterance completely unsuited to the cicumstances of 
Galilee and the period of the sending to which it is attached. 

But Mt goes much further than either Mk or Lk in the direction 
of combining separate utterances not related to one another in original 
application into larger wholes shaped to meet the exigencies of the 
evangelist's time. 2 The new emphasis placed on the need to endure 
hardship is a striking factor of Mt's advance upon Mk and S q . In 
the Discourse which we have now to discuss it goes to the extent of 

2 See von Soden, Early Christian Literature, p. 137 f . 



364 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

attaching, after the saying about sheep among wolves, two long 
paragraphs on persecution and how to meet it. These paragraphs 
not only leave entirely behind the historical setting assumed in the 
first section of the Discourse (10:1-15), but so completely outweigh 
it in sheer mass that by the time the end is reached the reader quite 
forgets that the mission originally in view was that into Galilee of 
Mk 6:6-12, paralleled in S by Lk 10:1-12. He now slowly realizes 
that the subject in hand is the great tribulations that are to precede 
the wind-up of all things. In short Mt has drifted into his favorite 
theme of eschatology. He has leaped all at once from the discourse 
of Mk 6:1-6, where directions were given the Twelve for their mission 
tour in Galilee, to the discourse from the Mount of Olives of Mk 
13:9-13. The subject is now the Doom of Jerusalem and Coming 
of the Son of Man, the horizon is no longer Galilee but "the whole 
inhabited world" (verse 14), the terminus in view is not the report 
back to Jesus of Mk 6:30=Lk 9:10, given by S in Lk 10:17-20, but 
the Return of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven. 

This is, in fact, the characteristic feature of Mt's Discourse on 
Apostleship, that while it begins as a sending of the Twelve on their 
mission in Galilee it passes unobserved with the saying on sheep 
among wolves (verse 16) into a warning of persecution to be endured 
by Jesus' representatives in a hostile world after the death of their 
Master. The Discourse winds up, accordingly, on the same note as the 
great picture of the final judgment in the Eschatological Discourse. 

The composition has thus ceased with verse 15 to be concerned 
with the situation of the original sending. Mt is not even thinking 
of the situation of the second sending related in Lk 22:35-38. He is 
drawing from Jesus' warnings of sufferings and persecution in store, 
wherever he finds them, an exhortation to the "apostles "and proph- 
ets of his own time to endure manfully the hatred and persecu- 
tion they must expect from a hostile world. Especially are they en- 
couraged to endure it in the assurance that deliverance is not far off 
at the Coming of the Son of Man. Indeed one may judge how far the 
original intention of the discourse is lost from view by the promise of 
verse 23. This the reader naturally takes as a direction to the Twelve 
not to carry their missionary work beyond the borders of Israel, 
contradictory as this would be both to verse 18 and to the closing 
words of the Gospel. In reality, as McNeile very properly explains, 
the logion is not meant for the missionaries but for the Church as a 
whole. The verse is peculiar to Mt, of unknown derivation, perhaps 
suggested by the words of the Plaint of Wisdom quoted in 23:34 
predicting persecution "from city to city." But the direction not to 
go beyond the borders of Israel is meant "not for the band of mis- 
sionaries, but the community of the disciples." 



THE APOSTOLATE 365 

The insertion of this assurance into the Discourse on Apostleship 
is significant of the situation of the evangelist both in place and time. 
He writes at a period when the sufferings of world-wide persecution 
have eclipsed in his mind the thought of conditions as they were when 
Jesus sent the Twelve to herald in Galilee the approach of the king- 
dom of God. It is a time and place when in spite of temporary re- 
moval of the community of the disciples from Jerusalem such as 
occurred in the years 68-70, Jerusalem itself, or at least "one of the 
cities of Israel," could be considered the central seat of the new faith. 
This apostolic center is certainly not Rome. It cannot be Ephesus, 
or Alexandria. But neither can it be Antioch. Caesarea Stratonis 
might possibly come into consideration but for the evangelist's strong 
prejudice against the cities of Samaria. Pella might possibly belong 
among the places tacitly considered as temporary refuges, in spite 
of its Greek name, Greek institutions, and transjordanic situation. 
But whatever the temporary refuge permitted, the only interpretation 
of the strange verse which seems to do full justice to its implications 
is that which regards Jerusalem itself, converted and purified, as the 
permanent center and the scene of the impending return of the Son of 
Man. The church, it would seem, has been compelled by the violence 
of persecution such as wrought the martyrdom of James, its head, 
shortly before the siege, and by the greater sufferings of the war 
to "flee to the mountains" (24:16). But the evangelist looks for its 
re-establishment in Jerusalem before the final consummation; and 
this in a degree which shall win for "the holy city," "the city of the 
great King" as he calls it, world-wide recognition as seat of the apos- 
tolic mother-church. To the mind of Jewish-christian writers of ortho- 
dox tendencies such as Hegesippus the church in Jerusalem had 
actually regained this position of pre-eminence toward the close of the 
first century. 

Our present task, accordingly, is two-fold. We have first to con- 
sider the opening section of the discourse (verses 1-15) observing 
what changes appear in the earlier directions to itinerant evangelists 
and prophets as now rewritten to meet the conditions of the later 
time; thereafter we may consider the warning of persecutions and 
exhortation to fearless confession introduced by verse 16 as part 
of Mt's eschatology ; for such it clearly is. 

iii 

The directions to the Seventy of Lk 10:1-12 represent the most 
original form attainable of the logion; for comparison with Mk and 
Mt reveals the fact that the number "seventy" is a mere literary 
device adopted by Lk to make room for the account of the Sending 
which he found in S after having already taken over the Markan 



366 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

account in chapter 9. The confirmation of this derivation from S 
supplied by Lk 22:35 is complete, for there the directions given in 
10 :4 are explicitly referred to as having been given to the Twelve. 

Further comparison of Mk 6:6-11 shows that Mk is also dependent 
on the same source (S), for the slight alterations which appear are 
clearly intended to meet the later requirement. The original logion 
sets forth the principle that preparation for the journey is needless 
because the hospitality of the people will supply every real want. 
The message brooks no delay, the messenger must find provision for 
the journey as he goes. Such is the original sense. Mk's adaptation 
reflects the beginnings of complaint. Conditions have developed 
akin to those which evoke Paul's arraignment of the Corinthians for 
submitting to the impositions of certain "super-extra apostles" 
(wepXtai/ cwroaroXoi). These interlopers had come with "letters of 
commendation" demanding support both for themselves and their 
wives, "burdening" the church as Paul himself had never burdened 
them. The effects of this abuse of the hospitality the churches had 
shown hi obedience to the maxim "The laborer is worthy of his 
food" are indeed traceable for a full generation later. They account 
for the stress laid upon the particular virtue of hospitality in Hbr. 
13:1, Clem, ad Cor. x-xii, and for the commendation of support 
furnished to church messengers in III Jn 5-7. They especially ac- 
count for the careful regulation of the whole matter of itinerant 
"apostles and prophets" inDidache, xi-xiii. It is significant of the 
growing need to restrict to a minimum what the "gospeller" might 
expect from his hosts, that the slight alterations of Mk from the form 
in which the principle was enunciated in S tend to shift the emphasis. 
Mk is less concerned to authorize the "apostle" to rely upon the 
churches for support than to limit the burden thus imposed to the 
barest necessities. The "apostle" may take a staff, because so simple 
a provision could not give rise to any suspicion of "making gain" 
of the churches. Except for the staff his entire outfit must be re- 
stricted to the garb of the poorest. This change of tone from S to 
Mk bespeaks the growing need to distinguish the truly consecrated 
"apostle" from those whom Paul had denounced as "false apostles." 

If, then, we go back to S, availing ourselves of the back reference 
in Lk 22:35 f. as a counterfoil, it will be at once apparent that the 
effort is to establish the original principle which Paul himself makes 
basic as an ordinance of the Lord (I Cor. 9:14). Lk 10:1-12 repre- 
sents in fuller form the teaching to which Paul refers in abstract. 
Jesus claims for his messengers the rights of the prophet or messenger 
of God which have their classical illustration in the Old Testament 
stories of Elijah and Elisha. In some degree the scribes had applied 
the principle to their own case, involving abuses such as later ap- 



THE APOSTOLATE 367 

peared in the Church. Jesus even accuses them of "devouring 
widows' houses," that is, using their station as lawyers to .divert to 
themselves the estates left for the support of widows. But he does 
not hesitate to claim for his own messengers the right to support from 
those to whom they are sent. Regulation of the burden thus imposed 
was left for the future. As we have seen, both the original principle 
and the regulation of it found confirmation in due time. S and Paul 
affirm the principle, Mk 6:8-10 is already affected by the need for 
regulation. 

The detailed directions of Lk 10:4-12 with their parallels in Mt 
10:7-15 (rearranged in order) are of decided interest as reflecting 
conditions toward the close of the first century. We note, for example, 
the non-appearance in Mt of the direction in Lk 10:7 that the mission- 
ary shall not attempt to maintain his own ceremonial purity of diet, 
but shall eat whatever his hosts set before him, asking no questions 
for conscience 7 sake. The point was covered by the logion about 
inward purity (Mt 23 :25 f . = Lk 11 :39^41). Again, the same scruples 
regarding the utterance of blessings on the unworthy which are openly 
expressed in II Jn 10 f. appear in the background of Lk 10:6 = Mt 
10:12f. But these matters of detail belong to the commentator. Our 
present enquiry must concern itself with Mt's eschatological addition 
to the discourse linked on by means of verse 16. 

iv 

In whatever city or village the gospeller meets a friendly reception 
he is first of all to "heal their sick," then to deliver his message, 
"The kingdom of God has come nigh to you." This is the direction 
given in Lk 10:8f. = Mt 10:7 f.; its counterpart appears in verses 10- 
12, the directions they must follow where the reception is unfriendly. 
The point emphasized is the positive assurance under all circumstances, 
whether the reception be friendly or the reverse, that "the kingdom 
of God is nigh at hand." The closing utterance, accordingly (verse 
15), which compares the fate of any city rejecting the message to that 
of Sodom, is not a threat of vengeance for maltreatment of the mes- 
sengers but only a reiteration of the message. The gesture of shaking 
off the dust (raised by?) the feet is practically equivalent to that of 
washing the hands. The impenitent city has received its warning, 
the judgment that now awaits it will be heavier than that of Sodom 
in the days of Lot. 

Mt takes this as the most suitable point at which to append the 
saying on sheep among wolves, together with its sequel in verses 
16-39 because he assumes the unfavorable reception to be the recep- 
tion actually accorded, and that not in Israel alone but throughout 
the world. He attaches to the saying the maxim familiar in rabbinic 



368 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

teaching, 3 "Be wise as serpents and guileless as doves" because the 
paragraph he now compiles from Mk 13:9-13 and Lk 12:11 f. is to 
govern the conduct of "apostles" in the great tribulation predestined 
as a prelude to the consummation of all things. As we have seen, the 
fate of the messengers thus rejected by the unbelieving world now 
occupies all Mt's attention, to the complete exclusion of the earlier 
scene. 

Verses 17-22 are taken almost verbatim from Mk 13:9-13, only 
verse 10 ( = Mt 24:14) being reserved for its proper connection. But 
Mk had first drawn from the source employed in Lk 12:11 f. the 
promise of the Spirit as defendants' counsel, so that verses 19 f. may 
be ascribed ultimately to S. The prolepsis is compensated in Mt 
24:9 by a condensed paraphrase, showing that Mt's anticipation is 
conscious and intentional. He is really dealing with the world-wide 
persecution which the Church must meet just before "the end"; 
for it is this final consummation to which the gospeller's endurance 
must hold out (verse 22). In verses 24 f. he applies the maxim "the 
disciple is not better than his teacher" to the fate that must be 
expected to befall them. Whether this application, which is followed 
in Jn 15:20 (cf. 13:16), be more authentic than that of Lk 6:40, would 
be hard to say. Certainly the reference to the accusation of collusion 
with Beelzebub (verse 25b) may safely be accredited to R. 

The extract from the eschatology of S represented in Lk 12:2-12 of 
which the last two verses had already been borrowed by Mk (13:11 = 
Mt 10:19 f.), is now continued in verses 26-33 = Lk 12:2-9, the 
Exhortation to Fearless Confession. Here two sayings (verses 26 
and 33) reappear in Mk 4:22 and 8:38 and one (verse 30) in Lk 21:18, 
an evidence of the overlapping of sources. 

The same Lukan eschatology, interrupted by the discourse on 
Abiding Wealth (Lk 12:13-34), is continued in Lk 12:35-59. The 
record from which Lk derived it seems to be the principal source for 
Mk's Exhortation to Watch for the Coming (Mk 13:35-37 = Lk 
12:38-40). If this be not another case of overlapping, the logion on 
Division in households (Lk 12:51-53) is also the source for Mk 13:12. 
At least we have here a further point of contact between the Doom- 
chapter of Mk and this Lukan eschatology. 

Mt concludes his exhortation to fearless martyrdom with Q logia 
calling for partings from kindred and even sacrifice of life itself as the 
condition of discipleship (10:37 f. = Lk 14:26 f., and 39 = Lk 17:33 = 
Mk 8:34f.). In the former it is not unreasonable to find a motive 
partly accounting for the inclusion in Division A of the pair of logia 
which warn of these conditions (8:19-22). 

It is thus apparent that Mt in the latter portion of his Discourse 
8 So in Cant. R. 2:14. 



THE APOSTOLATE 369 

on Apostleship has passed entirely beyond the scope of the original, 
leaving behind him the circumstances of the sending of the Twelve 
into the cities of Galilee whither Jesus expected himself to come, 
and occupying himself with the circumstances of world-hatred sur- 
rounding the Church of his own time, and the courage of martyrdom 
with which they must be met. The closing paragraph of the Dis- 
course (verses 40-42) which borrows the promises of Mk 9:37 and 41, 
inserts between the two a maxim not elsewhere reported (verse 41; 
cf. in Mt 13:17 "prophets and just men"). The combination forms 
an appropriate close for the sending, but does not suffice to conceal 
the patent prolepsis. The insertion of the eschatological sections can 
only be accounted for by the necessity Mt is under to adapt the ma- 
terial to the circumstances of his own time. That time has already 
been clearly indicated in our General Introduction as the period of 
world-wide persecution of the Church. As the Church's representa- 
tive every gospeller must be prepared to witness a good confession 
"before rulers and governors " until the entire Gentile world has had 
opportunity of hearing the message. Endurance of martyrdom is 
the test to which the "apostle" of these days of the great tribula- 
tion must respond. He must go with his own cross upon his shoulders, 
ready to meet his Master's fate. But the time of endurance will not 
be long. The End is in sight. Before the persecuted Church, driven 
from city to city in hope of safe refuge, shall have gone over the 
cities of Israel, the Son of Man will have come to their deliverance. 
Such is the outlook for gospellers as Mt views it. Further considera- 
tion of his eschatology must be deferred to our discussion of the 
final theme of the Gospel, the Consummation of All Things. 



Application of the theme of Mt's second Book to modern condi- 
tions would not be complete without some closing words on the con- 
troversial subject of miracle. For it is as "the signs of an apostle" 
that Mt groups together his series of ten faith-wonders to form its 
narrative introduction. It is also here that the widest gap appears 
between ancient and modern modes of thought, making it difficult 
for the reader of the Gospels to use their material with sincere sym- 
pathy and appreciation. 

A great chasm has been opened by scientific discovery between 
the ancient and the modern conception of divine action. Without 
ignoring the vast extent of gradation between cultured and uncul- 
tured intelligence in both ancient and modern times the general 
difference may be expressed as follows: In ancient times divine action 
was conceived as capricious and individual; in modern times it is 
conceived as invariable and general. The reign of law has been ex- 



370 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

tended to the remotest confines of an enormously extended universe. 
The modern view is not necessarily less religious than the ancient. 
To both the phenomena of nature and the events of history utter 
the speech of God, but the modern has come to realize that 

If He thunder by law the thunder is still His voice. 

This change in our mode of conceiving divine action has occasioned 
an almost complete disappearance of miracle from Christian apolo- 
getic. The church of Rome, it is true, still insists upon evidences of 
the continuation of this apostolic gift in connection with certain 
shrines, relics of saints, and canonization after death of certain 
revered communicants of its order. Protestants look upon the biblical 
accounts of miracle as belonging to a mode of divine revelation not 
available today, miracle having been superseded by methods belong- 
ing to a maturer age of humanity at a date not much later than the 
year 100 A.D. Needless to add that among Romanists and Protestants 
alike the witness of miracle is increasingly discredited as a support 
for the gospel message in proportion as enlightenment advances. 
The miracles no longer support the doctrine but the doctrine the 
miracles; and that not without increasing restiveness under the 
burden. 

Exact definition is indispensable for any helpful discussion of this 
much debated subject. The following seems to the present writer a 
definition which avoids the ambiguities and other defects of many. 
A miracle is an unusual event, witnessed or reported, interpreted 
as the intervention of an extra-human spiritual personality, demonic 
or divine, in answer to human appeal. 

The two words italicized in the above definition emphasize fea- 
tures commonly overlooked which are vital to the conception under 
discussion. (1) Almost without exception the miracles appealed to in 
Scripture or by the Church are reports of what occurred, received not 
at first nor even at second hand, but at an indefinite remove from the 
original witnesses and utterly without means of authentication. Nev- 
ertheless in speaking of biblical miracle it is surely necessary to include 
the vast preponderance of those which are quite unverifiable because 
cited merely by report, and not by the actual witnesses. (2) A mere 
occurrence, no matter how startling or how far transcending known 
human powers, is not a miracle, even to the most credulous and un- 
tutored mind, unless interpreted as taking place in response to some 
personal human emotion, usually the fear or desire of some individual 
or group. Examples will show the necessity for thus limiting the 
definition in scope. 

1. The story of the raising of Eutychus from the dead in Acts 20:7- 
12 is exceptionally favorable from the fact that it is related by an eye- 



THE APOSTOLATE 371 

witness. It is immeasurably better than the usual third- or fourth- 
hand report because in the general judgment of competent critics 
this portion of Acts belongs to the so-called Travel-document, the 
diary of a companion of Paul's journey to Jerusalem. The diarist 
in the light of the "many lamps" faintly illuminating the midnight 
darkness, saw Paul rush down from the third-story room, fling him- 
self upon the prostrate form of the lad in the street below who had 
fallen from the window, and heard the apostle declare, as he raised 
himself to meet the terrified gaze of the bystanders: "Make ye no 
ado; for his life is in him." His mind seems to be filled with scriptural 
examples such as that of Elisha and the Shunammite's son (II Kings 
4:32-37). It is kindled no less, we may be sure, by accounts of won- 
ders wrought by Jesus and the apostles, including Paul himself. 
Accordingly our diarist assures the reader that Eutychus' life was 
extinct. The lad when taken up from the ground was "a corpse" 
(veitpbs). To the reporter's mind it was sufficient proof of a real 
resuscitation that on the morrow, when Paul set sail "they brought 
the lad alive and were not a little comforted." What the witness 
really saw must here be distinguished, obviously, from what he re- 
ports. Hence even in cases where the witness is most direct the mira- 
cle certainly depends very largely on the assumptions made, first by 
the witness, afterward by transmitters of the report. On the tendency 
of the original report to accumulate new elements of wonder in pass- 
ing from mouth to mouth, and even from generation to generation, 
it is needless to expatiate. Here the modern sees nothing unexampled 
or inexplicable in the occurrence itself. 

2. But marvels must also be connected in thought with some per- 
sonal agency conceived as working for or against a given individual or 
people. Otherwise they lack that quality of superhuman direction 
which alone gives them evidential value. The shot from heaven must 
be aimed, not a random explosion. 

Few things can be imagined more marvellous to the untaught 
mind of a denizen of the South Sea islands than the spectacle of a 
human being advancing over the frozen surface of lake or stream. 
If the foe he is pursuing thus escapes his spear, and no knowledge 
is given of the nature of the phenomenon, the savage will probably 
ascribe it to spirit intervention. But once let the idea penetrate his 
mind that it is general, affecting all men alike, and the inference 
changes. He may still ascribe the freezing of water to spiritual powers, 
but it ceases to have the same significance as related to his conduct 
or religious action. It is not a "miracle " in any sense which has apolo- 
getic value, and can only become such when connected in thought 
with some design affecting individual human concerns. 

A biblical example would be the deliverance of Israel by crossing 



372 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the upper reaches of the Red Sea. As Napoleon's aides observed 
during his campaign in Egypt and Syria, a "strong east wind blowing 
all the night" often so far lays bare the shallows of the Bitter Lakes 
that Bedouin tribes familiar with the locality can cross "dry-shod." 
Once the crossing of Israel under leadership of Moses when escaping 
from the Egyptians comes to be understood as only such an unfore- 
seen occurrence its former evidential value disappears. To make it 
even "providential" there must be proof of design in the exertion of 
the power at work. Add, then, the promise of Moses that the deliv- 
erance will be wrought, the extension of his staff, the heaping up of 
the waters "like a wall on their right hand and their left" and their 
sudden return to overwhelm the pursuing host all features easily 
added by generations of poetic celebration of Israel's deliverance 
and the Power shows its participation in human affairs by taking 
sides. It is no longer impersonal. The shot is aimed. 

There is ample reason to believe that the shallows of the Bitter 
Lakes were exposed many times before and after Moses by "strong 
east winds," but until a connection was made between the phenom- 
enon and some personal response to human appeal no man dreamed of 
regarding it as a "miracle." The interpretation brought in the ele- 
ment of personal design which distinguishes miracle from mere prod- 
igy- 

If the definition be accepted it is time to apply it to the case in hand 
illustrating the difference between ancient and modern ideas in this 
particular. Earthquakes, whether in ancient or modern times, are no 
respecters of persons. To the modern seismologist, and even to the 
man in the street, the kind of domesticated earthquake which plays 
favorites, clinging to the heels of individuals to intervene sympathet- 
ically in token of divine approval or disapproval, while other individ- 
uals in the immediate neighborhood appear unaware that anything 
unusual has happened, belongs only to the most unreal of fanciful im- 
aginations. Yet the earthquakes which Mt introduces into the story of 
Calvary and Lk into the midst of the Travel document itself in Acts 
16:25-34 owe all the religious value they can be imagined to have to 
their discriminating quality. Unless they show the special interest 
of some unseen Power in the fate of Jesus, or in the suffering in prison 
of Paul and Silas, the earthquakes, supposing them to have occurred, 
were a mere coincidence. The stories, even were it possible to over- 
come their intrinsic difficulties and self-contradictions, would then 
have no religious value whatsoever. 

The ancient believed that earthquakes could be made the agencies 
by which demons, gods or the Creator of all evinced approval or dis- 
approval. The modern, whether he thinks God could thus take part 
in the religious drama or not, is utterly and rightly incredulous that 



THE APOSTOLATE 373 

God ever does intervene by any such clumsy method. The blunder- 
buss is not a divine weapon. Here is an insuperable difference be- 
tween writer and reader. It lies in the idea of the working of God; 
and the modern idea is certainly the worthier of the two. How, then, 
can scriptural and modern faith be brought into harmony? 

Accounts of apostolic and ecclesiastical miracle owe whatever 
religious value they possess to their interpretation as "signs." Oc- 
currences that point to no message of any particular prophet may be 
as marvellous as one please, but they mean nothing, or less than 
nothing, to religion. Medical men may announce tomorrow a method 
of resuscitation applicable to ordinary men and women under many 
circumstances. The discovery will mean much to science, but nothing 
at all to the religious world, unless some apologist attempts thereby 
to show that the biblical accounts of resuscitation were mere anticipa- 
tions of modern physics, thereby doing his utmost to deprive them 
also of religious value. To have the apologetic cogency of "miracle" 
a resuscitation must be not only well attested but connected with a 
divine purpose. 

The characteristic feature of the apostolic and gospel miracles is that 
they are "signs." What they are signs of is the proper basis of dis- 
tinction. In proportion as the narrators degenerate from the simple 
religious standpoint of Jesus they are more and more taken as signs 
of human power to control invisible personal agencies. In proportion 
as we move toward the beginnings in Jesus' own simple declara- 
tion to penitent believers in his message of divine help and de- 
liverance: "Thy faith hath healed thee, go in peace," they are de- 
tached from human and connected with divine intention. We attain 
thus to an attitude of hope and trust which reflects the spirit of 
Jesus, and is as uplifting morally and religiously as it is scientifically 
unassailable. To Mk the miracles are signs of Jesus' power, a degen- 
erative tendency which goes on increasing in later writings. To Jesus, 
as reported in the teachings of S q , they are signs of God's power ac- 
companying and confirming Jesus' message. They are the answer 
sent from heaven to those who accept the message in humble faith 
and obedience. Consequently Jesus is neither exalted in his own 
estimation by their appearance (though thankful for the proof that 
his message is confirmed), nor depressed when the expectation of 
miracle is disappointed. Those who have faith ask and receive, they 
seek and find, they knock and find all doors opening before them. 
Those that have no faith find nothing. 

Jesus does not feel called upon to offer a medical or psychological 
explanation of faith-wonders. His part is to interpret their religious 
significance, and this is the permanent kernel of the great discourse 
following the Question of John the Baptist, a discourse denouncing 



374 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

the spiritual blindness of those who can see no "sign from heaven" 
in the beneficent effects accompanying faith in Jesus' message of 
"glad tidings to the poor." 

Thaumaturgy ascribes religious value to mere amazement. True 
religious feeling sees none in it unless the marvel prompts to awe and 
gratitude toward some consciously beneficent Power. If ever an age 
was saturated with marvel it is the age of radio-activity and praeter- 
atomic physics. But mere marvels have not made the age in which 
we live religious, any more than the incredible powers which it has 
unlocked have made it moral. Only the exceptional scientist who 
looks upon his discoveries as "thinking God's thoughts after Him" 
is prompted by them to reverence, awe, and gratitude. The real 
lesson of Jesus on this question cannot be learned until men have rid 
themselves of the illusion of the thaumaturgist, the craving for mere 
wonder, as if wonder were in itself religious apart from the significance 
attached to its evoking cause. To Jesus this craving characterizes 
only an "evil and disloyal generation." To learn of him one must be 
rid of this illusion. One must take his standpoint of the "ear to hear 
and eye to see," the trustful spirit which finds "sermons in stones, 
books in the running brooks and God in everything." To Jesus, 
whirlwind, earthquake and fire might, or might not, be the vehicles 
of Jehovah's power. The Father's self-revelation could only be in the 
"still small voice." 

Marvel can only teach a religious lesson when approached in this 
spirit. If in these times of searching criticism for the records of the 
past, discovery for the coming age, science should give us even larger 
knowledge than hitherto of the mode of operation by which that 
residuum of authentic faith-wonders were accomplished which his- 
torical criticism accepts from gospel story out of the mass rejected as 
misreport followed by legendary accretion, the new knowledge should 
be welcome. But it will not affect the lesson taught by Jesus both in 
word and action. He has but one direction to healer and healed alike : 
"Have faith in God." This was the open secret of his wondrous 
teaching, his wonder-working life, his final victory over the world 
and man's last enemy. "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed" 
is his word to those who would follow "if ye have faith as a grain of 
mustard-seed ye may say unto this mountain, Be thou removed and 
cast into the sea, and it shall be done for you." Psychotherapy may 
some day fully define faith-healing from the scientific point of view, 
Jesus defines it from the religious point of view not how, or when, 
God's help will be given, but that it will be given "to him that asks 
in faith." 



THEME III 
THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 

CHURCHLY apologetic, from the earliest Christian and even from pre- 
Christian times down to the age of Luther, has always followed 
substantially the same lines. Its constant claim is 

The Spirit and the gifts are ours. 

Paul made this the one plea of his Gentile converts against the Judaiz- 
ers. The Jerusalem church directed it against the Synagogue on the 
one hand, the disciples of John on the other, citing words and works 
of Jesus. The Synagogue itself had previously defended the claims 
of Judaism vs. Greek philosophy by an argument fundamentally the 
same : Israel the people of divine revelation, the Gentiles only groping 
after God in self-deluding speculation. 

Matthew's third Book is constructed from materials brought to- 
gether in this apologetic interest. Both S and Mk in the sections on 
which Mt 11-13 is based reveal it as the nucleus of their agglomera- 
tions. It is important to our appreciation of the gospel records to 
make this intention clear. 

Separation of Church from Synagogue involved for the former the 
claim that believers in the gospel message were the true people of God, 
kindred of the Christ not according to the flesh but according to the 
spirit because alone obedient to the will of his Father. In view of 
the disobedience of the nation as a whole the supreme prerogative of 
Israel to be the world's hierophant, bringing to it the truths of pure 
religion, a "light to lighten the Gentiles," must pass from the hard- 
ened, unbelieving mass, bitterly hostile to the new faith, to the 
believing "remnant." These now become God's "lights in the world, 
holding forth the word of truth." 

Paul, who thus expresses the obligation now resting on his converts, 
expresses also (and not without a feeling of bitterness engendered by 
recent persecution in the earliest writing we have from his pen) his 
sense of the great wrong which has compelled the separation. The 
sufferings endured by his Thessalonian converts at the hands of their 
Greek fellow-countrymen are declared in I Thess. 2:14-16 to be but 
an echo of those endured by "the churches of God which are in Judea," 
for the Jews "both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave 
out us, and please not God and are contrary to all men; forbidding us 

375 



376 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins 
alway: but the wrath of God has at length overtaken them." 

This attempt of "the Jews" to silence the "word of salvation," 
which God intends should be spoken to the Gentiles, is for Paul the 
climax of their wickedness. It was necessarily also the proof to every 
Christian that the ancient prerogative of Israel had now passed to 
"the Israel of God," a new and spiritual seed of Abraham, or (in Mt's 
phraseology) a nation which "brings forth the fruits" of the divine 
kingdom. The body of believers, endowed with the Spirit were now 
God's "witnesses" to the world (Acts 1:8; cf. Is. 43:10). Hence Mt, 
at the close of his account of the heralding of the message by Jesus 
throughout Galilee, and his further dissemination of it through the 
mission of the Twelve to preach and to heal, can hardly do otherwise 
logically than to continue his story by an account of "the stumbling of 
Israel at the word"; a narrative whose complement is the reception of 
it by the remnant of the "people of the soil," who prove themselves 
the true kindred of Jesus by "hearing and doing the will of God." 

To convey this apologetic of the primitive Church Mt has two 
sources, for neither S nor Mk could fail to record in some form this 
basic idea. In each of these presentations the central core is a logion 
expressive of the divine commission to "the Son" to enlighten the 
darkness of heathendom with knowledge of the true God. 

Division B of Mt's third Book rests chiefly on Mk, who makes this 
logion (Mk 4:1 la) the nucleus of his individual view that the parable, 
so characteristic of the teaching method of Jesus, was an enigma, 
purposely chosen by the Lord as a means of veiling the "mystery of 
the kingdom" from "outsiders" while revealing it to the initiate, the 
spiritual kin of Jesus. Division A rests chiefly on S, represented by the 
Q material forming the bulk of chh. 11-12. This older document 
makes the same logion central to an account of the Stumbling of 
Israel at the word. 

The Q material of Mt 11:2-12:45 begins with the Question of the 
Disciples of John which Jesus makes the basis for an arraignment of 
the spiritually deaf and blind people, who, in the person of their 
leaders and the mass of Synogogue adherents, have rejected both 
messengers of "the Wisdom of God." John, who like another Jonah 
had given warning of doom to the unrepentant, had met rejection and 
martyrdom. The Son of Man, whose winsome message of reconcilia- 
tion had met similar rejection, was soon to meet John's fate. This Q 
context ends with the parable of the House swept and garnished, 
symbolic of the people of whom Jehovah had said (Zech. 2:10 f.), 

Lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, 

And many nations shall join themselves to Jehovah in that day 

And shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee. 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 377 

So far as the mass controlled by the Synagogue was concerned the 
Great Repentance inaugurated by the Baptist and continued by the 
work of Jesus had had but transitory effect. Israel had been like a 
man exorcised but undefended against relapse by new occupation of 
heart and mind. His last condition becomes seven times worse than 
before. Mt shows that he fully appreciates the application by attach- 
ing at the end of the parable "Even so shall it be to this evil genera- 
tion" (12:45b). 

The pivotal utterance of the whole long discourse (for Division A 
in Book III consists predominantly of discourse, being drawn almost 
wholly from S) is the Q version of the same logion which we have 
found to be pivotal in Mk, a quotation (to judge by meter and theme 
alike) from some Wisdom lyric celebrating Israel's prerogative as 
mystagogue of the nations. The speaker originally intended is Israel 
the "Son" of God who thus redeems his brethren: 1 

I thank Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 

That Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, 

And didst reveal them unto babes: 

Yea, Father, for such was the divine decree. 

All revelation has been committed to me by my Father 

And none knows the Son but the Father; 

Nor does any know the Father save the Son, 

And he to whomsoever the Son chooses to reveal Him. 

This admirable adaptation from the poetry of Israel's missionary 
consciousness, reproduced almost identically in Lk 10:21 f., embodies 
the essential Christology of S. Jesus, endowed with God's Spirit of 
redeeming Wisdom, is this chosen "Son of God" (Mt 12:18-21; cf. 
3:16 f.). Mt appends a third stanza based on Ecclus. li, expressive in 
similar terms of the invitation of "the Wisdom of God" to all the 
weary and heavy laden to accept her easy yoke. Both the Q quotation 
and Mt's supplement (in which, however, meter is disregarded), 
give poetic expression to the thought that the message of Jesus had 
been in reality the supreme utterance of that loving, redeeming, 
Spirit of the Wisdom of God, which in all the literature of the sages 
voices the yearning of Israel's Father in heaven over His wayward 
sons. To judge by the relation of the two connected miracles, Open- 
ing of Blind Eyes and Unstopping of Deaf Ears, to the logion on 
Spiritual Kin, which in the Mk version introduces the Teaching in 
Parables (Mk 3:31-4:9) but in the Lukan (S) form stands connected 

x See my article "The Son as Organ of Revelation" in HThR for Oct., 1916 
(IX, 4). For contemporary illustration of Jewish application of the terms "the 
Father" "the Son" to Jehovah and Israel respectively see Mechilta Ex. 12:1 
quoted by Schlatter, Matthaus, p. 384. 



378 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

with the denunciation of Israel's spiritual deafness and blindness 
(Lk 11:14-36), the S context made this application of the miracles. 
Israel is the deaf-mute and blind Servant of Is. 42:18-20; only the 
remnant of Wisdom's children, in whom her patience is rewarded, 
have "ears to hear and eyes to see." In the echo of this Isaian strain 
Mk and S are again found in coincidence (Mt 13:16 f. = Lk 10:23 f.; 
cf. Mk 4:9, 11 f.). 



Because this primitive apologetic of the Church supplies the princi- 
pal key to the theme of Book III as a whole it will be worth while to 
devote some further attention to the pre-Christian background of 
Jewish thought reflected in the logion as to the Hiding of the Mystery, 
or (as Paul expresses it in Rom. 3:1 f.) the "entrusting" to Israel of 
"the oracles (Xo7ta) of God" as their supreme prerogative. 

In its earliest traceable form this doctrine appears in the exordium 
to the Law of Dt. 4:6-8, 32 ff., where Moses makes the possession of 
this divine revelation Israel 's claim to a philosophy superior to that 
of any of the Gentile nations. In the Isaian doctrine of the Servant- 
witness it becomes central, as we have seen. Only as "the people of 
the book" could the powerless remnant in post-exilic days aspire to 
world-pre-eminence. By common consent of all interpreters of Is. 
40-66, chief inspired Scripture for the earliest Christians, it is the 
glory of this anonymous but matchless poet to have held up a new 
standard of hope to his enfeebled and discouraged countrymen. 
Deutero-Isaiah, as we clumsily designate the poet, reminds Israel of 
their divine calling to be "a light to lighten the Gentiles." Jehovah's 
"witnesses," a martyr people scattered among the Gentiles, would 
prove through their very sufferings a healing power for the world; 
by their knowledge (of the true God) they would bring many to 
righteousness (Is. 53:11). 

This noble ideal of the last of the great prophets is not lost sight of 
in the days of the "wise men" or sages, whose literature succeeds to 
that of prophecy. Israel is the sole abode of the divine Wisdom, which 
has vainly sought a resting place among the Gentiles, as Noah's dove 
flying over the watery waste had been at last compelled to return to 
him in the ark. This is the constant theme of the Wisdom lyrics from 
Ecclus. 24 to Bar. 3:9-4:5. This divine "wisdom" of revelation is 
always more or less closely identified with the Torah, though under 
this term is included more than the letter of the Mosaic books. To 
the wisdom writers the Law and the prophets are included under the 
general term Torah in its literal meaning of divine "teaching." By 
virtue of her "prophets, sages and scribes" Israel is Jehovah's 
"disciple," wakened morning by morning to listen with opened ear to 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 379 

the divine message for the benefit of the weary and heavy laden 
(Is. 50:4). 

Neither is the vision lost sight of in the still later days of apocalyp- 
tists and scribes. The Assumption of Moses, a writing still recent in 
the days of Paul and quoted in Jude 9, places in the mouth of its hero, 
Moses, at his parting from Joshua immediately before his "taking 
up," this claim to be the divinely appointed "mediator" between 
God and mankind. The title is applied by virtue of the revelation 
received by Moses in the creation story: 

For He (God) created the world on behalf of His own people. But He 
was not pleased to make known this origin of the creation from the be- 
ginning of the world, in order that the Gentiles might dispute about it 
and be humbled in convicting one another by their arguments. There- 
fore He ordained and devised me, whom He had prepared from the founda- 
tion of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant. 

As is well known, Philo presents Genesis in all seriousness as the 
real source on which even Plato and the Greek philosophers depend 
for whatever true insight they have into the mystery of the creative 
purpose of God. Paul, likewise, holds that the wisdom of this world 
is peculiarly convicted of folly in this particular respect, the vain 
attempt of Gentile philosophy to explain the purpose of God in 
creation. Only those who have the Spirit of God, that Spirit which 
had inspired and controlled the thought of Jesus, says Paul, can 
bear true witness to the destiny of the creation. Not heathen cosmol- 
ogy, then, but Christian "prophecy" is qualified to reveal "the 
things which God hath prepared for those that love Him." This 
knowledge of "the things with which we are graciously endowed 
by God" as His sons and heirs is supplied by "the Spirit." In such 
utterances of the Spirit God's purpose may be known, just as among 
men none is competent to declare a man's intentions save the spirit 
which is in the man himself (I Cor. 1:18-2:16). 

But it is not from Christian sources that Akiba, scribe and martyr 
of the days of our evangelist, learns his argument for Israel as God's 
hierophant, His "Son" in the special sense of the priest-nation, organ 
of divine revelation. Pirqe Aboth III, 18 gives Akiba's explanation 
of Israel's claim to the title "Son of God" in a special sense, as God's 
"Only-begotten" or "Beloved." As will be seen it rests upon three 
passages of Scripture, Gen. 9:6; Dt. 14:1, and Prov. 4:2, in which a 
distinction is made between the general sense under which all men 
may claim the title and the special sense applicable to Israel alone. 
Akiba rests this claim solely on the divine revelation with which 
Israel has been entrusted, particularly its revelation of the purpose 
of the creation: 



380 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Akiba used to say: Beloved are mankind, for man was created in the 
image of God. But the revealing to him that he was created in the image 
of God was a mark of special love, as it is said " In the image of God created 
He him." Beloved are Israel, for they were called children of the All- 
present; but it was by a special love that this was revealed to them, as it is 
said: "Ye (in distinction from the heathen) are the children of Jehovah, your 
God." Beloved are Israel, for unto them was given the coveted instrument 
(of the Torah) ; but it was by a special love that it was revealed to them 
that that coveted instrument was theirs through which the world was 
created, as it is said, " For to you I give good teaching; forsake ye not my 
Torah." 

The converse of this doctrine of the divine enlightenment of Israel 
is the hiding of the revelation from the heathen world, and this 
naturally is equally insisted upon. As Paul puts it, "When in the 
wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was 
God's good-pleasure (inscrutable decree) through the foolishness of 
the preaching to save them that believe." This is only a Christian 
adaptation of the classic expression of Jewish belief already given 
from the Assumption of Moses, or (again in Paul's language) the 
belief that "God chose the foolish things of the world that He might 
put to shame them that are wise." 

It is expressed in a thoroughly Jewish (though in date post-Chris- 
tian) rendering of Is. 24:16: "My mystery belongs to me and to those 
who are mine." Paul's frequent references to the "hiding of the 
mystery," that is, the divine concealment even from the angels 
(I Pt. 1:12; cf. Slav. Enoch xxiv. 3) of the purpose and meaning of 
the creation from the foundation of the world, in passages such as 
Rom. 16:25 f.; I Cor. 2:10; Eph. 3:5, and II Tim. 2:19, are therefore 
mere adaptations of a completely classical Jewish idea. There is no 
need whatever to imagine, as some excellent scholars have done, a 
literary dependence of Paul on the Q logion Mt 11 :25-27 = Lk 10:21 f ., 
in his fullest expression of the doctrine in I Cor. 1:18-2:16, because 
neither Paul nor the precanonical evangelist is strictly original. The 
doctrine of the hiding of God's revelation, or "mystery," from all 
save the children of His household was already ancient before Paul's 
time, to say nothing of our earliest Gospels. For this reason we find 
the logion itself in most varied forms both canonical and uncanonical. 2 

ii 

Our first knowledge of the application of this doctrine of the Hid- 
ing of the Revelation in primitive Christian apologetic is of course 
derived from Paul, who closes the systematic exposition of his "gos- 

2 Besides the variants in Mk and Q we have that of an unnamed gospel cited 
by Clement, Strom. V, x. 19 and another in Clem. Horn. XIX, xx. 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 381 

pel" to the Roman church by three chapters (Rom. 9-11) devoted 
to proving the displacement of Israel by the Church as agent of God 
in the world's salvation. In this argument Paul naturally resorts to 
the complaint of Isaiah. The prophet complains that he is sent to a 
people who have closed eyes and ears against his message (Is 6:8-12). 
To Paul's view Israel's rejection of the gospel can be accounted for 
only as a fulfilment of such predictions, specifically those of Isaiah 
and David. The "elect remnant" had indeed welcomed the gospel; 
but as for the rest "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they 
should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very 
day" (Rom. 11:7-10 quoting Is. 29:10 in combination with Dt. 
29:4). The Jews' insistence on their dietary laws as a ground of 
"purity" Paul considers to be foreshadowed in the Psalm from which 
Mt derives the Scripture fulfilment "they gave me gall and vinegar 
to drink" (Mt 27:34, 48; cf. Ps. 69:22), which continues: 

Let their table be made a snare and a trap, 

And a stumblingblock and a recompense unto them. 

Paul supplements this with further Psalm passages, 

Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, 
And bow Thou down their back alway. 

Thus from the beginning the Church counters Israel's claim to be 
the people of revelation, God's hierophant to a lost world, by means 
of the complaint uttered by lawgiver, prophet, and psalmist alike that 
this appointed messenger of Jehovah is spiritually deaf and blind. 
Paul's individual contribution to the classic apologetic seems to be 
chiefly a stricter application to it of the Pharisean doctrine of pre- 
destination (Israel's "hardening" foreordained on the Gentiles' 
account), and the assurance that in the end conditions will be reversed 
and Israel, provoked to jealousy by Gentile faith, will repent and be 
restored to their position of elder sonship. What now of the Gospel 
writers? 

As we have seen, the two earliest attempts that we know of to sup- 
port the primitive apologetic by the record of Jesus ' sayings and doings 
take divergent roads. S, which begins with the Question of John's 
Disciples, uses this as the basis for an appeal to the "works of the 
Christ." Jesus' answer to the question is a reference to his healings 
and his liberation of Satan's captives as fulfilling Isaiah's promises of 
redemption for Israel in her misery, poverty and the prison darkness 
of death. Such works cannot justly be ascribed to any other agency 
than the Spirit (Lk "finger") of God. Jesus follows up this appeal to 
his "mighty works" with a denunciation of Capernaum, Bethsaida, 
and other "cities where most of his mighty works were done," be- 



382 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

cause they repented not. He also denounces Israel as a whole as a 
generation spiritually blind and deaf, which has refused the message 
of both God 's messengers, the Baptist 's, and his own. In this Q de- 
velopment the chief emphasis inevitably falls upon the works of the 
Christ, because the starting point was the answer to John 's disciples, 
an answer peculiarly adapted to the Church's relation to this sect 
inasmuch as it was admitted that "John did no miracle," whereas the 
gift of "miracles" was one of those evidences of "the Spirit" which 
uniformly accompanied Christian baptism, distinguishing it from the 
Johannine rite. The theme appears to have been continued in S by 
a charge of Spiritual Blindness brought against those who demanded a 
Sign from Heaven (Mt 12:22 ff. = Lk 11:14 ff.). 

It is probably due to influence from Paul that in Mk another 
branch of the tradition is followed, with the result that in Book II 
Mt reverses the usual role of his two main sources. Division A draws 
chiefly from S because in this instance S makes appeal to the " doings." 
Mk, on the other hand, following the lead of Paul's apologetic, takes 
the Parables of the Kingdom as his evidence that Jesus met the 
obduracy of his kindred after the flesh by a method of teaching such 
that only they who had "ears to hear" received "the mystery of the 
kingdom," whereas the "outsiders" had fulfilled to them the Isaian 
prediction. Mk's chapter of Parables (Mk 3:31-4:34) thus becomes 
the natural basis for the Discourse of Division B. At all events Mk 
follows the example of Paul in disregarding here the charge of spiritual 
blindness and concentrating on that of deafness to the word. Mk 
reserves the accusation of spiritual blindness for another context 
(Mk 8:10-26) though traces remain. For he interjects in 3:22-30 a 
condensed report of the Blasphemy of the scribes at the work of the 
Spirit (cf. Mt 12:22-37 = Lk 11:14-23; 12:10) and in 4:21-23 a Q 
logion on Hiding the Light. 

Mk 's separate treatment of the two branches of the apologetic had 
serious effects, as we shall see, on the tradition as transcribed by Mt 
and Lk, and may reasonably be ascribed to indirect influence from 
Paul. In Paul's apologetic the mighty works of Jesus play no part, 
for the simple reason that these "gifts of the Spirit" are considered as 
still manifested in the "signs of an apostle." Israel's rejection of the 
word, however, is to Paul, as we have seen, a manifest token of divine 
hardening. God had given them "a spirit of stupor, eyes that they 
should not see and ears that they should not hear." However, the 
theory that parables are enigmas and that Jesus used these transpar- 
ent illustrations to veil his message from his kindred after the flesh 
while revealing it to the select group of his disciples, cannot justly be 
ascribed to Paul. This extraordinary idea seems to be a special con- 
tribution of Mk's own. 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 383 



m 

We may perhaps regard the make-up of S and Mk respectively in 
Mt's third Book as covered in the main by the introductory analysis 
specially directed to this aspect of the question. As we have seen, Mt 
presents the usual elements of Narrative (Division A) and Discourse 
(Division B). Division A easily falls into two parts, of which the first 
(ch. 11) closes with the Hymn of Revelation already described. The 
second (ch. 12) leads over to Division B by an account of the Opposi- 
tion of Scribes and Pharisees which drew upon the nation its doom, a 
forfeiture of the right to be called the children of God in favor of the 
new heirs, those who under the leadership of the chosen Servant would 
"proclaim true religion to the Gentiles." With this object in view 
(clearly expressed in the quotation from Is. 42:1-3, Hebr, expanded to 
include 4b, LXX, in verses 17-21) Mt combines a Markan and a Q 
element, each charging the Pharisees (in 12:38 "scribes and Phari- 
sees") with the guilt of this opposition. 

The Markan material occupies the beginning and end of the chap- 
ter, verses 1-16 transcribing from Mk 2:22-3:6 the two stories of con- 
flict with the Pharisees over sabbath observance which form the cli- 
max of Mk 's section on the Growth of Opposition, while verses 46-50 
present Mk's paraphrase of the S logion on Spiritual Kin, for Mk 
3:31-35 is only an adaptation of the logion recorded in Lk 11 :27 f., an 
adaptation characterized by Mk's usual abundance of descriptive 
detail. 

The Q material supplies the remainder of the indictment hi a fuller 
and more intelligible version than Mk's of the Blasphemy of the 
Scribes against the work of God (verses 22-30 = Lk 11:17-23) ex- 
panded by additions from Mk and S expressive of Mt 's hatred of the 
Synagogue leaders (verses 31-37), and brought to an appropriate 
close by two paragraphs which have better connection as placed by 
Lk, the Demand for a Sign (12:38-42 = Lk 11:16, 29-32) and the 
parable of the House Swept and Garnished (Lk 11:24-26). 

These two paragraphs continue the thought of the reproach for 
the rejection of God's two messengers, John and Jesus, John's warn- 
ing of judgment being compared to Jonah's at Nineveh and Jesus' 
winning entreaty to the wisdom of Solomon. The evil generation 
which has rejected them forfeits God's promise to "dwell among 
them." The abode of His Wisdom-spirit instead of being in readiness 
for Him has become the haunt of every evil spirit. The S introduction 
to these two paragraphs was a brief account of the Exorcism of a 
Dumb Devil (Mt 12:22-24=Mk 3:20-22=Lk 11:14 f.) which was 
perhaps associated with a second miracle of opening of blind eyes 
(cf. Mt 12:22 "blind and deaf-mute," "spake and saw" and the 



384 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

coupling of the two healings in Mt 9:27-33 (34) and Mk 7:31-8:26). 
Mt places them at the end of Division B instead of after 11:7-19 
because they condemn the "evil and adulterous generation." 

Division B adopts and re-enforces Mk's theory of the parables as 
a means of Hiding the Mystery from the evil generation who are 
Jesus' kindred only according to the flesh, while revealing it to his 
kindred according to the spirit. Mt not only takes up the idea, ex- 
panding the group from three Parables of the Kingdom to seven, 
but finds in Ps. 78:2, LXX, (cited erroneously as from "Isaiah") 
a further reference to the use of "parables" to reveal the mystery 
"hid from the foundation of the world." 

The basis of Mk's discourse in parables is an answer to the Blas- 
phemy of the Scribes, which had been evoked (in S) by the popular 
plaudits at Jesus' Exorcism of a Dumb Devil. Jesus had replied with 
the charge of Spiritual Deafness. He sustains it by the parable of 
the Sower (Mk 4:1-9) addressed to those that "have ears to hear." 
This is followed by an Interpretation (verses 10-20), probably the 
work of S, into which Mk inserts his own adaptation of the logion on 
Hiding the Mystery of the kingdom (verses 11 f.). The parable in its 
Markan form has proved so acceptable to both Mt and Lk that 
neither has preserved the S equivalent. Consequently we can only 
conjecture Mk's dependence on it. The conjecture gains probability, 
however, from two facts (1) that Mk interjects an alien element in 
4:11 f.; (2) that a parable of this type, contrasting the harvest to be 
reaped from the "good and honest soil" with the disappointments 
resulting from those who for various reasons turn a deaf ear to the 
message, supplies exactly the sequel to be expected after the com- 
plaints uttered in the earlier Q context against the "evil generation" 
which has refused to listen to both God's messengers (Mt 11:16-19 = 
Lk 7:31-35). 

We have seen reason to believe that in S an Opening of Blind Eyes 
was included in the context. However this may be, Mk's continua- 
tion of the theme is dominated by his own conception of the Hiding 
of the Mystery by the use of parable. Unlike Lk, who seems to take 
the parable of the Sower as teaching the doctrine of the Elect Rem- 
nant and brings the subject to a close with the logion on Spiritual 
Kin (Mk form) transposed from before the parable (Lk 8:4-21), 
Mk appends first a loosely agglutinated group of logia on Bringing 
in the Light and Hearing the Word with diligence (verses 21-25), 
thereafter two further Parables of the Kingdom (verses 26-32) which 
the closing summary (verses 33 f .) intimates are given as examples of 
how Jesus used this method of veiling the truth from all but the elect. 

This Markan theory does not seem to appeal to Lk although in 
8:10 he transcribes in part Mk's Scripture fulfilment; for only one 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 385 

of Mk's two supplementary parables of the kingdom appears in Lk, 
and that not in the Markan connection. The Mustard Seed and the 
Leaven are given together by Lk in 13:18-21 in what appears to be 
their original connection and application. We are therefore safe in 
concluding that both the inserted logion on the Hiding of the Mys- 
tery, which interrupts the connection of Mk 4:10 with verses 13-20, 
and the appended logia and supplementary parables of verses 21- 
25, 26-32, all of which the evangelist represents as uttered after the 
departure of the multitude (cf. verse 10), are attachments of his 
own, not originally related to the parable of the Sower with which 
the discourse began. It is of some interest to note, however, that the 
group of attached Q logia (Mk 4 :21-25) which Mt gives only 3 in 
their Q context, seems to be made up with reference to both branches 
of the S apologetic (4:21 = Mt 5:15=Lk 11:33; 4:22=Mt 10:26=Lk 
12:2; 4:25 = Mt 25:29 = Lk 19:26). 

Our present endeavor is to trace back the teaching to Jesus himself, 
pausing no longer with the varieties of transmission than is needful 
to get at the full original sense. We have tried to make it apparent 
that Mk's postponement of that branch of the teaching which has to 
do with the blindness of the Servant is probably a secondary develop- 
ment, because elsewhere the two phases of Jesus' indictment of the 
"evil generation," its deafness to the word and its blindness to the 
signs of divine intervention, are found interwoven. Such is clearly 
the case in Mk's own resumption of the theme in his Exile section, 
where the second Sign of the Loaves with its sequel the Demand for 
a Sign (Mk 8:1-13: cf. Jn 6:1-21, 22-40) stands between the Unstop- 
ping of Deaf Ears (7:31-37) and the Opening of Blind Eyes (8:22- 
26). As we have just seen, traces are not wanting even in Mk's Dis- 
course in Parables (4:1-34) that spiritual blindness once belonged 
to the indictment. However, it is to the other Gospels that we must 
turn for really convincing evidence that the primitive record linked 
the two together. 

I. Certainly the fullest and most elaborate development of this 
branch of the apologetic is that which in Jn 9:1-41; 10:19-21 links 
together the Blasphemy of the Scribes (9:41; 10:19-21; cf. Mk 3:22- 
30) and the Opening of Blind Eyes (9:1-34; cf. Mk 8:22-26). The man 
whose eyes Jesus has opened but whom the Pharisees have cast out 
from the synagogue as a "sinner" stands opposed to the Pharisees who 
are spiritually blind. Jesus pronounces these guilty of unforgivable 
sin because in declaring the Saviour himself a sinner and his work of 
deliverance an effect of demon-possession they have consciously sinned 
against the light (9:39-41). 

3 Mk 4:25 forms a partial exception. It occurs twice in Mt, once in the Markan 
context (13:12) once in that of Q (25:29). 



386 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

2. Although the actual healing fails to appear in Lk, perhaps be- 
cause of his effort to avoid even the appearance of duplicating 18:35- 
43, the section beginning with the Exorcism of the Dumb Devil 
(Lk 11:14-36) has many indications that spiritual blindness was part 
of the indictment of the "evil generation." The Demand for a Sign 
(11:16), here as elsewhere, stands connected with the Blasphemy of 
the Scribes who ascribe the Exorcism of the Dumb Devil to collusion 
with Beelzebub. In the eschatology which follows in 12:54-56 it is 
answered by the charge of spiritual blindness in not being able to read 
the "signs of the times," a passage which some texts attach to Mt 
16:1 f. from some extra-canonical source. Even with no more definite 
reference to actual opening of blind eyes than Lk 7:22 it seems rea- 
sonable to hold that the substance of Mk 8:22-26 once stood as part 
of the context of Lk 11:29-36. 

3. Besides the habitual linking together of the Exorcism of the 
Dumb Devil and Opening of Blind Eyes as an inseparable pair 
exemplified in Mt 9:27-33 and again in the editorial touches of 12:22, 
Mt introduces immediately after Mk's quotation of Isaiah's charac- 
terization of Israel as spiritually deaf and blind a Q logion addressed 
to the Twelve as follows: 

But blessed are your eyes for they see; and your ears for they hear. 
For I give you my word, Many prophets and just men have longed to see 
the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which 
ye hear, and heard them not (Mt 13:16 f. =Lk 10:23 f.). 

The things which "prophets and just men" (for the expression cf. 
10:41) longed in vain to see can only be the gracious tokens of the 
coming kingdom which Jesus had bidden John's disciples report to 
their master. The disciples who witness them are congratulated be- 
cause they appreciate their blessed significance. The unbelieving 
Pharisees who shut their eyes to the "signs of the times," gracious and 
sinister alike, and blindly ask for "a sign from heaven" still more 
the scribes who ascribe the gracious work of "the Spirit of God" to 
Beelzebub are in the position of the religious leaders denounced in 
Is. 29:10, blind leaders of the blind. It is true that Lk 10:23 f. slightly 
postpones this Q logion, attaching it to the Return of the Seventy. 
But Mt 's connection at least deserves consideration. If this was the 
original context of the logion in S we have a further link establishing 
the line of thought of the original discourse. Jesus answered the 
accusation "He casteth out by Beelzebub" not merely with a tu guo- 
que, but offered the works of healing as evidences of the intervention 
of the Stronger than the Strong Man Armed. By the Stronger, 
however, Jesus does not mean himself, as Mk appears to assume, and 
as modern commentators imagine. He is appealing to the glorious 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 387 

promise of Is. 49:22-26 that "Jehovah himself" will come to the 
deliverance of his captive people from their seemingly all-powerful 
foes. Jesus' "mighty works" are not his own, and if the charge had 
been uttered against the Son of Man only it could have been par- 
doned. But the blasphemy was uttered against "the Spirit of God," 
a conscious calling of evil good and good evil. Therefore it can never 
be forgiven. 

Proceeding from this vantage point Jesus launches a further attack. 
His opponents demand "a sign from heaven." This is refused with 
the example of Jonah, whose warning of doom to the unrepentant was 
humbly accepted by the Ninevites without miraculous attestation. 
Those who ask this prove their own blindness because ample tokens 
have been given to those that have eyes to see. Those who have faith 
hi God's promise have only to look about them. The dead nation has 
been roused from its torpor by the Elijah-like preaching of John, the 
poor now hear glad tidings, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the 
deaf hear and blind eyes are opened. Only those who will not see and 
will not hear stand in the way of the Spirit (Lk the "finger") of God. 

Comparison of all four of our Gospels enables the careful student to 
restore the substance of this line of argument, which, however scat- 
tered in later application, must represent in general outline the tradi- 
tion of S. Mk 's subdivision of the material permitting his own peculiar 
application of the apologetic to the teaching in parables is no more 
than a side issue as compared with the larger line of thought. It be- 
littles the real conception as effectively as his handling of Jesus' reply 
to the Blasphemy of the Scribes. That which we recover by compari- 
son of all four of our witnesses is a sublimely religious application of 
the great themes of Isaiah: Jehovah himself has drawn near by His 
Spirit for the deliverance of his captive people. But He encounters 
only deaf ears and blind eyes among their leaders. 

Is it possible to trace the dominant thoughts of Jesus himself be- 
hind the applications of his teaching made by the primitive Church in 
defense of their claim that God had transferred to the Church through 
its endowment with the Spirit the stewardship of His mysteries? 

iv 

It seems to be difficult for the modern reader of the Gospels to rid 
himself of the idea that Jesus offered the "word of wisdom" which he 
proclaimed as a witness to his own superhuman knowledge, and the 
"word of power" by which his healings and mighty works were 
accomplished as proof of his own supernatural greatness. Yet this is 
certainly not the representation of the earliest and most authentic 
sources, although it must be admitted that the tendency increasingly 
manifests itself in the later reports to place Jesus in the less religious 



388 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

and more self-exalting attitude. We have had occasion to notice this 
tendency in Mk, it becomes overmastering in Jn. In such modern 
mistranslations as "a greater One than Solomon is here," or such 
misinterpretations as those usually applied to the Psalm of Thanks- 
giving for the Revelation of the Fatherhood, we have abundant evi- 
dence that the primitive sense is not yet appreciated. The remedy for 
such misunderstanding is a more historical conception of the doctrine 
of the Spirit as applied throughout the Old Testament to the words 
and deeds of the prophets, and by Jesus himself to his own work and 
to that of his predecessor in the proclamation of the advent of the 
kingdom. 

Our oldest witnesses are definite and positive in their representation 
that the wisdom and power in question are "the wisdom of God and 
the power of God" (I Cor. 1:24). In Acts the apostles are not more 
explicit in refusing to regard miracle as a personal belonging than in 
ascribing the same attitude to Jesus. "Why look ye upon us," says 
Peter to the crowds astonished at the healing of the lame man in the 
temple, "why look ye upon us, as though by our own power or god- 
liness we had made him to walk? " (Acts 3 :12). Jesus was a man whom 
"God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, so that he went 
about doing good, healing all that were under the tyranny of the 
devil; because God was with him." Even his raising from the dead is 
most explicitly referred to the power of God in distinction from any 
ascribed to Jesus himself. Converts are "believers in God, which 
raised him from the dead and gave him glory (that is, a glorified 
body), so that your faith and hope might be in God " (I Pt. 1:21). 

If even our evangelists still show some care to observe this distinc- 
tion, ascribing the healings of Jesus, and their own as well, to the 
"finger" or "hand" of God (Lk 11:20; Acts 4:30), and explaining in 
general terms that "the power of God was with him to heal" (Lk 
5:17), it is not to be imagined that Jesus himself left room for doubt 
as to the Source whence this power flowed. Indeed the whole point of 
the distinction made in his reply to the Blasphemy of the Scribes be- 
tween utterances against himself and utterances against the work of 
God is completely lost unless this fundamental truth be recognized. 
In the specific case of the Exorcism of the Dumb Devil there could by 
no possibility be any accusation of blasphemy which to the multitude 
would have the least savor of right or reason except as Jesus could 
make it appear that the work was not his own but God's. Hence the 
strong expressions "finger" or "Spirit of God" and the demand "By 
whom do your sons exorcise?" In the generalizing parable of the 
Strong Deliverer it is a complete degradation of the sense not to see 
that Jesus is speaking of the deliverance promised in Is. 49:24-26 to 
be effected by "Jehovah Himself" just because no other can prevail 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 389 

against foes so mighty. Peter also, in Acts 10:38, is perfectly explicit 
in ascribing this deliverance from the "tyranny" of Satan to the 
power of God who worked "with" Jesus. Certainly the interpretation 
which ignores this distinction, and assumes that Jesus boasts of his 
own miraculous power and speaks of himself as victor over the power of 
Satan, has no claim to be considered authentic in view of these 
testimonies. 

The same is true with regard to the message proclaimed. Even were 
we not justified in regarding the Thanksgiving for the Revelation as a 
quoted Wisdom lyric, it would still be inadmissible to interpret the 
poem otherwise than the parallels cited from contemporary and 
earlier Jewish literature require. If one can imagine Jesus as actually 
offering such a thanksgiving it could only be as representative of the 
"little ones," who in distinction from the wise and understanding are 
"taught of God." The revelation spoken of in the poem is what the 
apostolic age designates a "gift of the Spirit"; it is gnosis, an insight 
divinely bestowed upon the "prophet" into "all mysteries and all 
knowledge" (I Cor. 13:2). We can imagine Jesus speaking on behalf 
of those who have humbly and gratefully accepted the glad tidings, 
offering thanks to the "Lord of heaven and earth" for His message to 
the "babes," and making this sonship of adoption, this sonship based 
upon the Spirit and not upon mere national or racial claims, a mis- 
sionary call to enlighten the world. We cannot, in justice to his uni- 
form attitude of simple obedience and humble faith in his Father, 
imagine Jesus as exalting his own Sonship in any sense not shared by 
all the children of divine Wisdom. 

If, then, we put the question as formulated by Mt in the passage 
immediately succeeding to this Book on the Hiding of the Revelation, 
"Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?" 
(Mt 13 :54) the answer must be that while it is quite possible that Mt 
himself would answer the question in the same manner as Mk from 
whom he transcribes it, nevertheless the earlier and more authentic 
witness preserves the distinction. It is "the wisdom of God and the 
power of God." 



An admirable discussion of the question "Jesus and the Spirit" 
(Jesus und der Geist] is published by Professor Hans Windisch of 
Leiden, in the volume of Studies in Early Christianity (1928) edited by 
Professor S. J. Case and presented to Professor F. C. Porter and 
the present writer. It raises serious question whether the meager 
testimony to words of Jesus promising or referring to the gift of the 
Spirit justifies the belief that the apostolic claims were not largely 
an afterthought. Now it cannot be denied that the verbal evidence is 



390 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

slender. The later tendency is exemplified in Ev. Naz., which presents 
Jesus as "anointed with the Spirit" at his baptism in a sense which 
made him depositary of "the whole fountain" of the charismata known 
to the Church, the permanent "resting-place" of the Spirit which had 
found temporary abode in the prophets. This tendency superseded the 
earlier and simpler represented in the conceptions of Jesus' Galilean 
following. To his own contemporaries Jesus was simply the "prophet 
of Nazareth." Like the prophets of pre-synagogue days he "speaks 
with authority and not as the scribes." He is endowed with the 
prophet's superhuman "powers," the "word of wisdom and the word 
of power." But this is simply because "God was with him." 

Jesus' view is of the same religious type. Because he has a sense of 
divine "sending" like that so emphatically put forward by the great 
prophets of the ancient time his inward experience at the time of his 
baptism by John becomes a sustaining power throughout his min- 
istry, though he does not act upon this vocation until the Baptist's 
work is cut short by Antipas. To Jesus as to the mass of the people, 
John was "a prophet like one of the prophets." If Jesus went be- 
yond this general verdict to proclaim John's mission a "greater" 
than those of the former time could claim, it was because this mis- 
sion seemed to fulfil the promise of Mai. 4:4-6 of a last Great Re- 
pentance, turning the heart of the children to the Father and the 
Father to the children, 4 as when Elijah at Carmel "turned the heart 
of Israel back again " from following the baalim. Without this Great 
Repentance the coming great and terrible Day of Jehovah, would 
prove a curse instead of a blessing. Because his message of warn- 
ing is ultimate, because he voices Jehovah's last summons to erring 
Israel before the great Day, John is to Jesus "greater" even than 
Elijah, something "more than a prophet." 

The message when taken up by Jesus himself cannot be spoken 
with less authority. If John's authority was "from heaven" that of 
Jesus cannot be less so. But the authority, whether in word or ac- 
tion, is derived from the message, not conversely. Whoso receives 
any bearer of this message commissioned by Jesus receives the Com- 
missioner, and whoso receives Jesus receives Him that sent him 
(Mk 9:37). Here is the ultimate origin of Paul's claim to be "an 
apostle not from men but from God." 

In one respect the prophetic authority of Jesus is superior to John's; 
at least it receives (so unexpectedly to himself that his work is sud- 
denly diverted to new scenes) an added confirmation in the "mighty 
works" of healing and "deliverance from the tyranny of Satan" 
which appeared from the very outset of his ministry in Galilee, as a 
proof that "God was with him" (Mk 1:21-39; cf. Jn 3:2). 

4 The reading followed in Ecclus. 48:10. 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 391 

All accounts agree that no such phenomena had attended the 
baptism of John. To Jesus the exorcisms (of which the first at least 
was unsought), with the healings which followed, were not only 
a confirmation of the message (and authority) which he had taken 
over from John, but an assurance that the warning to "Repent" 
was not without that assurance of divine forgiveness which forms 
its constant complement in all the prophets. 

No rabbi would hesitate for a moment to give this assurance to 
every true penitent; but to give it "with authority" one must be the 
conscious bearer of a special message from the God who to Israel 
was He "that forgiveth all thine iniquities and healeth all thy dis- 
eases"; for healing and forgiveness of sin are inseparable in the teach- 
ing both of the Synagogue and of the early Church. When, therefore, 
Jesus commissions the Twelve to heal they are also commissioned to 
proclaim the forgiveness of sins (Jn 20:23). The elders of the Church 
also regularly exercised the gift of healing in similar association with 
prayer, anointing with oil and laying on of hands. So also did the 
rabbi. The difference which leads the Church to incorporate in its 
earliest baptismal symbol the special clause "I believe in the forgive- 
ness of sins" is the sense of authority conveyed by the assurance of 
special commission. To Jesus the fact that the deliverance of his 
message of repentance had been accompanied so unexpectedly by 
these phenomena of healing among those who received it in penitent 
faith gave an added touch of authority. It confirmed the "sending," 
it was "apostolic." At the same time it also gave the message a more 
gracious and winning quality. God had "stretched forth his hand 
to heal," as the Twelve later supplicate that He will do in their case 
(Acts 4:30). It transformed the threat of "wrath" into a "gospel of 
peace." It was a token that the Great Repentance already begun 
would not be in vain. This note of difference from the austere mes- 
sage of John is not forgotten in the Church's apologetic. 

The story of the Question of John's Disciples is admirably chosen 
to lead off in the comparison of the authority of John with that of 
the Son of Man which forms the basis of Division A in Mt's third 
Book because it not only serves as an answer to that important body 
of "disciples of John" who in apostolic and post-apostolic days con- 
tinued to exalt their own baptism, barren as it was of the "gifts of the 
Spirit," over against that practiced by the Church, but because it 
truly exhibits this difference of the "glad tidings to the poor" which 
gave to Jesus' message the tone of wedding bells, as compared with 
the harsh warnings of his predecessor. The form of the question, 
"Art thou he that should come?", and of the final clause of the 
answer, "Blessed is he that shall not fall back from me" may well 
be dictated by the special interest of the precanonical evangelist to 



392 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

overcome all doubt of Jesus' claims as Christ and Son of Man; but 
the historical nucleus is unassailable just because it presents so 
clearly, and in a manner so far from self-exaltation, Jesus' real sense 
of his divine commission. 

What John sought and needed was assurance that his own pro- 
phetic work was being carried on. The message Jesus sends is that of 
a divine encouragement. "Yes, says the Nazarene, it is being car- 
ried on, and more. The great Eepentance has begun. The lost sheep 
are being rallied to the standard of the Kingdom; and not only so, 
but God's ' finger ' has been stretched forth to heal, an assurance 'from 
heaven and not from men' that the power of the Strong Man is 
already breaking before the Stronger than he. Satan is being cast out. 
But not by Beelzebub. Not by any human power. The God of Israel 
has Himself drawn near to open blind eyes, to unstop deaf ears, to 
cleanse the lepers and make the lame to walk. The misery of the 
captive people is cheered by glad tidings of liberation, they are al- 
ready rising from the darkness of their tomb." Such is the nature of 
the message of comfort the greater Prophet sends to his beloved 
leader of earlier times, to cheer him for the martyrdom he is soon to 
face. 

Our interest is like that which leads the evangelist to turn from the 
message Jesus sends to John and face its implications as regards his 
own sense of divine authority. Jesus makes the incident the occasion 
for a rebuke to the leaders and adherents of the Synagogue who have 
turned a deaf ear to his message and refused to see in the spectacle 
of the penitent multitude, blessed with healing according to their 
faith, any "sign from heaven." 

Of the reality of the phenomena of faith-healing in their general 
character no historical critic today will entertain any serious doubt. 
The very fact that no claim to miracle working was ever raised on 
behalf of John is proof that the faith wonders did begin with the 
ministry of Jesus, doubtless in the characteristic way described in 
Mk 1:23-38. But we have only to trace back the use made of 
their testimony from Mk 1 :39-3 :6 to the S q discourse on which Mk 
rests, and from the S appeal back to the actual words of Jesus, to 
see that to him their witness is not an endowment with personal 
superiority as against the scribes, not even an individual authority 
as the one ordained to be the Son of Man, though as yet resident 
"upon earth." To Jesus the "stretching forth of God's hand to heal" 
is simply the divine attestation to the message he has been sent to 
deliver. 

The proof that to Jesus it is the message rather than the messenger 
that has authority appears in many ways, perhaps in none more 
clearly than in the detachment of the claim from his own person. 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 393 

Not merely does he distinguish sharply between utterances directed 
against himself personally and utterances against the work of God, 
whose "finger" or "Spirit" attends his message, but he associates 
his own prophetic commission with John's (Mt 21:23-32), and even 
transmits it to those who after him are to take up the message in their 
turn. His disciples, both as his aides in Galilee and later when he 
too, like John, will have sealed the message with his blood, are to 
preach the coming Kingdom, heal the sick, proclaiming the forgive- 
ness of their sins, and are to be received, like himself, as "messengers" 
of the Highest. When they stand before magistrates and kings the 
word that they speak will have the inspiration of the same Spirit of 
the Father, for the Spirit by which the prophets of old bore their 
witness will be their Advocate (Mt 10:17-33). Whatever develop- 
ments may have come after Galilean times in the growing belief of 
the Church in its exalted Lord, who had "received from the Father" 
the gift now poured forth upon them, there is nothing exclusive in 
these claims of Jesus. His is as yet the prophetic, not the messianic, 
consciousness. But, as Windisch points out, this final step is a short 
one. 

The relation cannot be inverted. To imagine the Synoptic repre- 
sentations of Jesus' sense of prophetic authority as due to an endeavor 
of the early Church to find in him something corresponding to its 
own charismata is to transpose cause and effect. It is true that assimi- 
lation has taken place to some extent. The story of the Baptism and 
Vocation of Jesus rests upon the Isaian passage quoted in Mt 12:18- 
21 and reproduces the type of experience belonging to Christian 
baptism generally as an Adoption by the Spirit and endowment with 
the "gifts." Lk especially delights in depicting Jesus as the messianic 
prophet endowed with the Spirit (Lk 4:1, 14-18). His birth was of 
the Spirit (1:35). "In the Spirit" he utters the Thanksgiving for 
the Revelation (the gift of gnosis) in connection with the endowment 
of the disciples with authority and Jesus' congratulation of them at 
beholding the signs of the coming kingdom (Lk 10:17-24). "The 
Holy Spirit" is the gift of the heavenly Father to them that ask Him 
(Lk 11:13; c/. Mt "good things"). We must allow for a certain 
amount of coloration of more primitive expressions such as "finger of 
God" and "hand of God" by the substitution of the term "Spirit," 
a term more intelligible to later times. But it is not the term which 
counts but the experience. And the experience in which the later 
belief of the Church is firmly rooted is that of the historical Jesus, 
who finds not only assurance for himself but comfort for his impris- 
oned predecessor and encouragement for disciples who must take 
up the message after him, in the fact that God had "anointed him 
with the Holy Ghost and with power, so that he went about doing 



394 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

good, healing all those that were under the tyranny of the devil, 
because God was with him." 

The historic record of Jesus' claim to speak and act by "the Spirit" 
must be sought more in the fact than in the terminology. And from 
this recognition we should approach the interpretation of the two 
expressions with which our study of Jesus and the Spirit began, the 
comparison of Jesus' work with the "wisdom of Solomon" and the 
Thanksgiving for the Revelation. Windisch has admirably accounted 
for the meagerness of direct and explicit reference in the reported 
words of Jesus to "the Spirit" as the source of his words and deeds 
of authority. Later conceptions of Jesus as the Servant, the Son of 
God, the Son of Man, have tended to eclipse expressions which did 
not necessarily differentiate him from the earlier prophets or from 
John. The apostolic age preferred to think of Jesus as giver rather 
than as receiver of the Spirit. But if we simply ask ourselves what 
devout Jews of this period meant when they spoke of the "hand" 
or "ringer" or "arm" of God, whether they had any other way of 
conceiving divine action in the world than through His Spirit, which 
throughout their Scriptures is the regular agency by which God oper- 
ates in the world, either to inspire a message or accomplish the work 
of any human agent, we shall realize the utter impossibility of Jesus, 
or his followers, resorting to any other explanation of the word of 
wisdom and the word of power that were his, than "The Spirit of 
God." 

The defense of Jesus against those who impugned and blasphemed 
his work forms the basis of the Book of Mt on the Hiding of the 
Mystery; and this defense hinges upon the distinction between the 
work and the agent, the divine power and wisdom and the human 
messenger. Many are "stumbled" in the Christ because they cannot 
make the distinction. Many oppose his work and ascribe his healings 
to Beelzebub. Their blasphemy is not a matter of concern for him. 
It matters deeply to them, because the work is God's work, performed 
in the name of God and by God's beneficent power. Many are deaf 
to his message as well as blind to the signs of the times. They reject 
his warning as they had rejected John's. They call for a sign from 
heaven when the very heavens themselves are ringing with Jonah's 
cry, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed." Nevertheless 
Wisdom has her children, there are babes to whom God has revealed 
things hidden from the wise and understanding. To these "little 
ones" Jesus appeals. There are disciples whom he can congratulate 
on witnessing a redemptive work of God which prophets and kings 
had longed for and died without beholding. To them he can say, 
"Blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear." 
There are multitudes of penitent believers from the "people of the 



THE HIDING AND REVELATION OF THE MYSTERY 395 

soil," spiritual kindred of his own who "have ears to hear." To 
these he turns for that good and honest soil in which the seed of the 
word must be sown, assured that in spite of all discouragements it 
will bear at harvest, "thirty- sixty- a hundred-fold." 

When we turn back to the words of Jesus himself, articulated 
according to their intrinsic meaning and connection, dissociated from 
the temporary applications put upon them by primitive apologetic, 
we cannot find terms less severe than "mistranslation" for the render- 
ing which transforms Jesus' reference to his work as "a greater matter" 
than the marvel which drew the Queen of the South to the feet of 
Solomon, into a claim to be himself a "greater one" than the scriptural 
representative of wisdom. The adjective "greater" is in the neuter. 
It is not the /zeifrup (masc.) which Jesus uses when comparing John 
with the lesser prophets who had gone before, the expression we should 
expect were Jesus instituting a similar comparison between himself 
and Solomon. It is ir\tiov, of whose application in the sense of a 
greater one, not a single example can be quoted in all Greek literature. 
Only through ignorance or disregard of the rabbinic abbreviation of 
style can we explain the persistence of scholars in clinging to so 
ungrammatical a rendering in spite of the alternative offered by the 
Revisers in the margin. The Repentance evoked by the preaching of 
John (or, as some prefer, the preaching of Jesus) was "a greater 
matter (n-Xetoi') than Jonah" in the condensed language of talmudic 
expression; the phenomena attendant upon Jesus' glad tidings to the 
poor were "a greater matter than Solomon," the report of whose wis- 
dom reached the Queen of the South. It is only a confirmation of this 
correct rendering of the adjective irXetov in Mt 12:41 and 42 that in 
12:6 R mt has attempted a compromise, blending the nd$uv of 11:11 
with the TrXetoi/ of 12:41 f. in the neuter p.el^ov. Even this must still 
be rendered "a greater matter" taking the sense to be "the vindica- 
tion of my disciples in their freer practice is a matter of more im- 
portance than the exemption of the priests in the temple." Thus 
only violence to the grammar itself avails to obscure the distinction 
which is made by Jesus between the paramount claim which he 
makes for the work or the message, and the minimal claim which (at 
least in his own case) he makes for the messenger and agent. 

Equally disturbing to any true appreciation of Jesus' claim to 
speak with the authority of the prophet is the misinterpretation of the 
Thanksgiving for the Revelation to Babes. It is commonly spoken of 
among critics as the " Johannine passage," because it stands alone in 
Synoptic literature in the degree to which it approximates the fourth 
evangelist's representation of Jesus as the incarnation of the divine 
Logos, the Messenger who brings all truth from heaven. The designa- 
tion "Johannine" is justified inasmuch as here (whether because S is 



396 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

resting upon some lost Wisdom lyric, as is avowedly the case in Lk 
11 :49 f ., or only because S and Jn fall back here in common with Paul 
in I Cor. 1 :18 ff. upon the ideas of the wisdom writers) we do reach 
back to something like a common root. But to speak of the Q logion 
as in any sense a personal claim on Jesus' part rather than a claim for 
his prophetic message, is surely misinterpretation if attention be paid 
to the distinction which we have shown to be fundamental to his 
teaching. 

Either by appropriate quotation from the wisdom lyrics which bless 
God for having made choice of Israel to be hierophant to the world of 
his redemptive purpose, an adoption ignored by Gentile pride but 
ingrained in the deepest consciousness of the chosen people; or else 
by imitation of these high claims of Israel to be a priest-nation, bring- 
ing true religion to the world and justifying many by his knowledge, 
the precanonical evangelist of Mt ll:25-27 = Lk 10:21f. presents 
Jesus as the representative of this calling of the Servant. Israel has 
been false to the trust, therefore it has been taken from her, but a 
remnant of the penitent and lowly have been found to receive the 
charge. In their behalf Jesus "rejoiced in the Holy Spirit," giving 
thanks to God in this Hymn 

I thank Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 

That though thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, 

Thou didst reveal them to the lowly. 

Yea, Father, for such was Thy divine decree. 

All revelation was committed to me by my Father, 

And none acknowledges the Son but the Father; 

Nor does any know the Father except the Son, 

And he to whom the Son may choose to bring the revelation. 

It is this consciousness of divine revelation in the prophetic mes- 
sage of Jesus upon which Paul falls back, when he speaks of "the 
revelation of the mystery hidden from the foundation of the world, 
but now made known in the Scriptures of the prophets," no less than 
in the interpretation which the Scriptures now receive at the hand of 
Christian prophets speaking "in the Spirit" (Rom. 16:25f.). It is 
this doctrine of the Hiding of the Mystery of the Kingdom of God 
from scribes and Pharisees that it might be revealed to the "little 
ones" of Jesus' spiritual Kin, on which Mt has built up his third 
Book against the Jews. 



THEME IV 
THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 

MT'S fourth Discourse is evidently intended primarily for those 
described in I Cor. 12:28 as having the charisma of "governments," 
who under various designations ("ye that are spiritual," Gal. 6:1; 
"those that are over you in the Lord," I Thess. 5:12 f.; "those that 
have the rule over you," Hbr. 13:7, 17, 24) usually receive a special 
message at the end of the epistles, particularly charging them to 
compose disputes, sustain the weak, restore the erring members of 
the flock, and above all to show the spirit of humility and serviceable- 
ness characteristic of Jesus. How difficult a task was theirs, how 
complicated by differences of conscience, particularly in respect to 
Jewish distinctions of "clean" meats and "holy" days, we may learn 
from the extended instructions devoted to these questions in Paul's 
Epistles, that to the Romans in chh. 12-15:14 supplying a typical 
example. 

Because of this unmistakable interest dominating the whole struc- 
ture of Division B (Mt 18) we naturally expect from previous experi- 
ence of our evangelist's use of his material that Division A will lead 
up to this Discourse on church government with narrative selections 
of corresponding character. In reality such is the case, though the 
large extent of Markan narrative, covering the interval between the 
Mission Charge of Mk 6:6-13 (expanded to form Mt's second Dis- 
course in ch. 10) and the Markan discourse on Church Government 
(Mk 9:30-50) tends to obscure this adaptation. 

An exaggerated disposition exists to look upon Mk's groupings as 
representing real historical sequence, in disregard of the warnings 
of very ancient tradition. To make apparent their pragmatic nature 
in face of this predisposal it will be necessary to bear in mind the 
analysis of the Exile Section of Mk (Mk 6:56-8:26) as expanded and 
developed by Mt, an analysis to which our special Introduction to 
Book IV was devoted. If this analysis of the structure of Mk 6:56- 
8:26 be not wholly misleading our Roman evangelist has used certain 
duplicate material to supplement his story of the Galilean ministry, 
constructing from it, in combination with the single anecdote of the 
Syrophoenician Woman, a complete Ministry of Jesus among the 
Gentiles. This is brought in after the account of Jesus' withdrawal 
from Galilee to fill the gap between the withdrawal and the beginning 
of the Via Crucis in 8:27. 

397 



398 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The pragmatic value to the western church of material tending to 
show that Jesus abolished the Jewish distinctions of meats and himself 
set the example of carrying the gospel to the Gentiles is obvious. 
We note, however, an extreme paucity of material outside the single 
story of the Syrophoenician Woman. We also note a straining of 
sense both as respects this anecdote and the logia which Mk associates 
with it. Indeed Mk's resort to this in order to obtain the desired 
application is indicative of failure. No real Gentile mission could 
be discovered in this obscure period of Jesus' career. Explicit state- 
ments of Paul that Jesus did not set aside the Mosaic distinctions, 
but became subject to the Law as an example of consideration for 
the limitations of those to whom he was sent, and in particular that 
he "was made a minister of the circumcision to meet the promises 
made to the fathers" make it certain that there was none. Mk, it 
would seem, has strained the facts concerning both the incident of 
the Syrophoenician and the retirement of Jesus to "the borders of 
Tyre and Sidon." Mt, therefore, is certainly correct in removing all 
traces of such a tour of Gentile territory as Mk narrates in 7:24- 
8:26. On the other hand we have no need to question Jesus' with- 
drawal from the threat of Herod's awakened attention to the obscu- 
rity of northern Galilee (the "borders of Tyre and Sidon") and a safe 
refuge in Philip's kingdom between Caesarea Philippi and Bethsaida. 

The treatment given by Lk to this Exile Section of Mk is most 
significant. With the exception of the first Miracle of the Loaves 
(really the climax and end of the ministry in Galilee) Lk leaves 
nothing of Mk's whole construction down to the incident of Caesarea 
Philippi! This extraordinary cancellation of 75 verses from the very 
center of Mk's Gospel, covering just that portion which might be 
expected to prove peculiarly welcome to Gentile readers, is so in- 
explicable from mere surface indications that the resort of many 
critics to a theory of accident * is not surprising. In spite of the cer- 
tainty that the copy of Mk employed by Mt (probably later than 
Lk) contained this section, it was conjectured that Lk's did not con- 
tain it, and that in spite of Lk's greater care in supplying himself 
with documentary evidence (Lk 1:1-4) he neglected to obtain an 
unmutilated copy of this chief document of all. 

This theory of accidental omission by Lk of the Exile Section is 
made practically untenable by a number of slight indications that he 
knows something of its contents. We note for example the mention 
of "Bethsaida" as scene of the Miracle of the Loaves in Lk 9:10 
(cf. Mk 6:45 and note the omission of Mt). Hence other attempts 
are made to account for Lk's omission as deliberate. But for the 

1 If accident can be called a theory. Appeal to "accident" is rather the critic's 
surrender of the attempt to explain. 



THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 399 

deliberate omission of so large a section better explanation must be 
found than the desire to avoid duplication. It is true enough that the 
material of the Exile Section is largely duplicate, for reasons above 
stated. It is also true that Lk sometimes goes to an extreme in the 
cancellation of Markan material, omitting at least in one case, that of 
the Anointing in Bethany (Mk 14:3-9; cf. Lk 7:36-50), what was 
only in appearance duplicate. But mere recognition that certain 
parts of this long section of Mk reproduce in variant form matter 
elsewhere covered cannot account for Lk's omission of the entire 
mass. He would, as in other cases, have omitted what he felt he had 
related elsewhere and would have availed himself of the remainder. 
To the mind of the present writer, only one explanation is adequate 
to cover all the facts. It is the much fuller and far more historical ac- 
count which Lk gives in his second treatise, our Book of Acts, of this 
whole matter of the abolition of the distinctions of meats and carrying 
of the gospel to the Gentiles. This is, in fact, the main subject of the 
entire Book of Acts. Naturally evangelists such as the author of our 
present Mk, limited to the earthly career of Jesus, and Mt, similarly 
limited, if they sought in the example of Jesus any principles at all 
which could be applied to this supreme problem of church unity in 
the apostolic age, were obliged to pursue the method of Mk. We have 
seen that Mt takes over Mk's Exile Section with careful correction 
of its more glaring defects. 

There are, therefore, two reasons why in Division A we should 
expect no such rearrangement of Markan material as Mt has hereto- 
fore indulged in. (1) The material was already grouped with the same 
pragmatic purpose as that to which Mt aimed to apply it; 2 (2) there 
was no outside parallel to affect the order, Mk having already ex- 
hausted the available material. As we have seen, Mk's extreme 
meagerness of data for his Exile Section indicates that little could 
be related beyond the single anecdote of the Syrophoenician whose 
scene was "the borders of Tyre and Sidon." 

2 To the above statement we note one important exception. Mk's story of 
Jesus' rejection at Nazareth (Mk 6:1-6) is attached by Mk at the end of his 
series of Faith-wonders to emphasize by contrast the lesson of faith. This is 
contrary to its intrinsic purpose and to the requirement of the context as well; 
for the paragraph flagrantly interrupts the connection of the Faith-wonders 
(Mk 4:35-5:43) with Herod's Comment (6:14-16). Because of its Markan con- 
nection with the latter Mt prefixes the Nazareth episode to Division A of Book 
IV; whereas he should have included it among the anecdotes illustrating how 
Jesus' hearers were "stumbled" at his "wisdom" and his "mighty works." 
This is obviously its intrinsic application. Mt should have placed it somewhere 
in the group 12:22-45. The slight postponement to 13:54-58 may be due to over- 
sight in the make-up of Book III, Division A, compensated by later inclusion; 
or it may be through unwillingness to engage in further transposition of Mk's 
order. 



400 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

On the other hand Mt's corrections and additions bear significant 
witness to his appreciation of Mk's pragmatic aim and full sympathy 
with it. We need mention here only the "Petrine Supplements" 
and the reconstruction of the opening scene of Jesus' conflict with 
the "Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem" on the issue of the 
Mosaic distinctions of "clean" and "unclean" (Mt 15:l-20 = Mk 
7:1-23). 

For the grouping and contents of Division A we have, accordingly, 
a sufficient explanation, an explanation which so fully applies to the 
corresponding division of Book V that the two may to some extent 
be considered together. From the close of the Galilean ministry to 
the end of his story Mt finds no further occasion for material change 
in Mk's order. He transcribes his chief narrative source in its original 
order and almost without omission. His only thought is to supple- 
ment,* and that much less copiously than before. The reason is that 
no outside data were available; and the reason for this in turn is that 
Mk's Exile Section had exhausted the little which tradition could 
furnish to his purpose, while his Peraean Journey section (Mk 10) 
was equally sterile of real historical event, the anecdotes being both 
scanty in number and assembled for topical and pragmatic interest 
rather than historical. Such few data as appear give no warrant for 
speaking either of a Gentile, or a Perean "ministry" in S. The critical 
historian will hardly venture further than to say that after Jesus' 
withdrawal from Galilee a period of obscurity follows until at Jericho 
we find him at the center of a Galilean group of pilgrims to the Pass- 
over. Even the fourth Gospel can teach us at least the lesson of not 
overrating in historic or chronological value the pragmatic groupings 
of Mk. 



By including both the first and the second Miracle of the Loaves, 
together with their adjoining Markan context, in his narrative intro- 
duction to the Discourse on Church Unity Mt supplies his readers 
with a comprehensive view of the whole subject. The eucharistic 
features of the story show plainly enough that to the primitive 
Church the Miracle of the Loaves was significant of its communion 
with the risen Lord. In orderly groups like those of church and syna- 
gogue assembly, attended by the Twelve while Jesus presides, the 
multitude exemplify the original brotherhood. They prefigure a 
primitive church assembly under direction of bishop and deacons. 
Mk's employment of the parallel in a setting significant of an exten- 
sion of the faith to others beyond the original Galilean group gives 
concrete form to his teachings in the context of Jesus' abolition of the 
Mosaic distinctions between "clean" and "unclean" and acceptance 



THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 401 

of the Syrophoenician's faith as a "cleansing of the heart." If we may 
see in the use of the number twelve in the first instance and seven in 
the second a reflection of conditions in the primitive apostolic com- 
munity when the separation was first made between "Hebrews" 
and "Hellenists" by appointment of seven deacons from the latter to 
"serve tables" over against the Twelve who had thus officiated 
before, 3 Mk's intention thus to symbolize the two great branches of 
the Church will be the more evident. 

Mt, as we have seen, follows suit in this grouping but adds touches 
of his own which show his appreciation and approval of Mk's general 
application, though they correct and extend it in certain particulars. 
Especially do the "Petrine supplements" in 14:28-32, 16:17-19 and 
17:24-27 show how much greater importance Mt attaches in the 
solution of the great issue to the authority of Peter. This apostle, 
to whose vision of the risen Christ the Church owed its first confession 
of Jesus as "the Son of God" (14:28-33), and whom many regarded 
as specially chosen to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), is he 
to whom Jesus expounds the true significance of his debated utterance 
(15:15). Peter further receives full authority as head and "Rock- 
foundation of the Church" to "bind and loose" (16:17-19). He also 
acts as Christ's vicegerent and steward of the brotherhood in its 
financial relation to the state (17:24-27). Mt thus goes even further 
than Lk in his departure from Mk's ascription to Jesus alone of the 
authoritative cancellation of the Mosaic distinctions. It is true that 
on both sides there are traces of difference. Lk himself shows con- 
siderable inconsistency in ascribing the decision first to a church 
conclave in Jerusalem which endorses Peter's action in disregarding 
the distinctions after the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-11:18), 
while thereafter, at a second church council held again in Jerusalem 
after the conversions effected by Paul and Barnabas, he repeats the 
abolition, subject to reservations proposed by James (Acts 15:1-33). 
Mt leaves no place for James, but shows similar difference as respects 
Peter's personal authority to "bind and loose" over against church 
authority in the contrast between 16:19 and 18:18. Both Lk and Mt, 
however, as compared with Mk, show the effects of authentic tradi- 
tion in assigning to Peter a momentous part in the decision. 

It is quite in keeping with a just historical sense of values that Lk 
should make the story of the Church's triumph over the Mosaic re- 
strictions of "clean" and "unclean" the central feature of his ac- 
count of how the gospel was extended to the Gentiles. The doctrine 
that God might cleanse the hearts of the heathen by faith, so that cir- 
cumcision and the ritual observances became needless for their 
salvation, was easily framed. The Pharisees had as yet achieved but 

3 See BGS, pp. 81 and 96. 



402 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

slight success in convincing the Galilean peasantry that the dis- 
tinctions of meats had any application to their case. Josephus' story 
of the conversion of Izates of Adiabene shows that on the mission 
field itself Jews were far from agreement in calling for observance 
of the ritual law among converts. Our evangelists are certainly 
correct in their unanimous representation that Jesus and his following 
of aposynagogoi (unchurched) paid small attention to it. Difficulties 
arose only when Jews previously " clean " according to Pharisaic stand- 
ards became "unclean" by "going in to men uncircumcised and eat- 
ing with them," or when Jews dwelling "among the Gentiles" ceased 
to circumcise their children and obey the (Mosaic) customs. The 
real problem was how the ritually "clean" man was to be protected 
from "pollution" by contact with the ritually "unclean." The 
Talmud furnishes a strict parallel in its provisions against defilement 
by contact with non-observers. In Acts the non-observers are of 
course the Gentile converts. In Mt and Mk, as in the Talmud, 
the non-observers are the Galilean "people of the soil." 4 

Dissemination of the gospel in Gentile territory would inevitably 
entail loss of caste by individual Jewish believers, if they "ate with 
men uncircumcised"; and if the example of disregard were set by 
men of sufficient rank among the apostles it would surely lead to 
complete abandonment of the distinctions of meats outside of Pales- 
tine itself. This effect upon Christianized Jews, not any mere question 
of the salvability of converted Gentiles without the Mosaic observ- 
ances, was the issue at stake; and to those of Jerusalem, whose 
leader was James, and who thought of the coming kingdom as a 
restoration of the ruined tabernacle of David to which "the residue 
of mankind" would resort as center of their allegiance (Acts 15:15- 
18), the issue was vital. 

It was also vital to "certain of the sect of the Pharisees who be- 
lieved," who insisted that even the Gentile converts of Paul and 
Barnabas must be circumcised and charged to keep the law of Moses 
(Acts 15:5). Lk tells of the compromise adopted on proposal of 
James by "the apostles and elders" at Jerusalem, which would make 
it possible for Jewish observers to circulate or dwell among Gentile 
non-observers without loss of caste. In spite of our positive knowledge 
from Paul's Epistles that such was not the case, Acts insists that Paul 
also not only undertook to circulate these compromise "decrees" 
in Galatia, where lay the chief seat of trouble (Acts 16:4), but that 
Paul himself set an example to "the Jews which are among the Gen- 
tiles" of "walking orderly, keeping the law" and instructing them 
to do the same (Acts 21:20-26). 

The testimony of Paul and the later literature is decisive that this 

4 See Biichler, Der Galilaische Am ha-Aretz. 



THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 403 

compromise of the Jerusalem "decrees" was futile. As between Jeru- 
salem and a part of the church at Antioch, those who sided with 
Barnabas and Peter against Paul, including "all the Jews," the 
decrees served their purpose for a time and for a limited territory. 
With the aid of Silas Paul resumed, after the rupture with Barnabas 
and Antioch, his missionary efforts on the old basis. The Judaizers 
contested his control of Galatia, and even of Achaia, but this opposi- 
tion soon yielded to the rapid passage of the center of gravity of the 
Church to the Greek-speaking branch. Lk's standpoint therefore 
represents a temporary halt, a brief respite in the inevitable trend 
away from Pharisaic Judaism obtained through the desperate exertion 
by Jerusalem of all its powers of conservatism. 

Mt, on the other hand, and the Petrine element of Acts, whose 
story culminates in the account of the decision of the issue by the 
conclave assembled in Jerusalem after the conversion of Cornelius 
(Acts 10:1-11:18), represents a broader view, whether the documents 
in the case be earlier or later. These two authorities, Mt and I Acts, 
represent the situation as it was before the delegation "from James" 
came to remonstrate with Peter at Antioch, and as it came to be after 
the interlude produced by the futile "decrees." The compiler of 
Acts as it stands represents the short-lived triumph of "those from 
James." In Acts 10:1 ff. and Mt 15:1 ff. alike the distinctions of meats 
are destitute of any divine sanction, a mere "tradition of the elders" 
which the scribes and their blind followers the Pharisees seek to force 
upon the people, a "planting which the Heavenly Father did not 
plant" and which is now to be "rooted up." It belongs to "the teach- 
ing of the Pharisees and Sadducees," a leaven of which the Church 
must beware (Mt 15:13; 16:12). On this issue Mt is less compromising 
than Lk. If he shows the consideration for the scrupulous which 
Paul demands as an imitation of Christ, it is not in the way that Lk 
would show it, by the enactment of legislation in their favor. Mt as 
well as Lk ignores the lapse of Peter at Antioch so sharply repri- 
manded by Paul. (Where else than in Paul 's flaming apologetic could 
we expect to find reference to it?) The difference is that while Mt 
stands by Peter's original position of freedom and exalts his authority 
to "bind and loose" as though nothing had happened to undermine it, 
Lk deserts his first loyalty to Peter in the settlement of Acts 10:1-11: 
18 to take up with the ill-advised compromise proposed by James in 
Acts 15:1-33. 

ii 

Mk's original undertaking to arrange all his material in the form of 
a consecutive story of Jesus' public career compelled him to limit 
himself in the treatment of the subject of the breaking down of the 



404 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

"middle wall of partition" to slight adaptations of the anecdotes he 
groups together and the selection of such as seemed to him best suited 
to his purpose. It entailed the inclusion of large portions whose pri- 
mary function is only historical, narratives such as that of Peter's 
Confession at Caesarea Philippi, combined with the Transfiguration 
story and its symbolic sequel, 5 which simply advance the drama. Of 
course Mt, in adopting Mk's historical outline, is forced to include 
these also. Their presence in Division A does not neutralize the evi- 
dence of the additions and changes which indicate his dominant 
motive. They play the same part as the narrative sections of the 
Pentateuch taken over by P from JE to form the framework for the 
code-discourses. 

In BGS the reader will find our judgment as to the part these anec- 
dotes were intended by Mk to play in the development of his story. It 
is apparent, however, that Mk reaches the end of a chapter with 9:29, 
and that the Quarrel for Pre-eminence (Mk 9:33-37 = Mt 18:1-5), 
leading to a discourse on Toleration (verses 38-41), Stumbling-blocks 
(verses 42-48 = Mt 18:6-9), and Peaceable Control (verses 49f. = Mt 
5:13), form the basis for Mt's fourth Discourse. To the elaboration 
of this Markan basis in Mt 18 we must now give our attention for 
the sake of the light it has to throw on the authentic teaching of Jesus. 
For, as already noted, the process by which our evangelists turn to 
account the sayings and doings of Jesus applicable to this issue is but a 
continuation of the practice of Paul. Especially in the matter of 
consideration for the scruples of "weak" consciences is the example of 
Jesus appealed to. We naturally expect to find grouped together in 
Mt's fourth Discourse such teachings of Jesus as the apostolic Church 
found applicable in the course of its great struggle to "keep the unity 
of the Spirit in the bond of peace." 

At the outset of the Discourse Mt finds it impossible to take the 
broad view of Mk in the matter of Toleration. The incident of Mk 
9:38-^1 deals with a situation almost identical with that of Acts 
19:13-16. A stranger exorcist practices his healing art in the name 
of Jesus. Lk meets the case by leaving the alien exorcist to discomfi- 
ture at the hands of his own patients. At Ephesus such a situation had 
developed; the sons of Sceva, a Jew belonging to a high priestly 
family, had thus rivalled the work of Paul. But the outcome had only 
enhanced the reputation of Paul while discomfiting the sons of Sceva. 
Mk is even more conciliatory than Lk. He takes the same attitude as 
Paul in Phil 1:15-18, who rejoices that by such rivalry "whether in 
pretense or truth Christ is preached." But Mt cannot bring himself to 
such a pitch of toleration. The worker of miracles, even if he profess 
the name of Christ and call him Lord, Lord, must be tried by the test 

5 For the pragmatic aim of Mk 9:14-29 see BGS ad loc. 



THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 405 

of "good" works. Mere wonder-working does not prove him a friend. 
Unless he bring forth the fruit of good works he is of those false 
prophets of whom the Church has specially to beware (24:11 f., 24). 
At the judgment there will be many to say, Lord, Lord, did we not 
prophesy by thy name, and exorcise by thy name, and by thy name 
do many mighty works? But the Judge will answer : I never knew you ; 
depart from me, ye that work lawlessness (Mt 7 :15-23). The instance 
of Toleration cited by Mk comes too near to Mt's special abhorrence, 
the "false prophet" who teaches "lawlessness." He omits Mk 9:38- 
40 and reverses the logion with which it ends. In Mt 12:30 = Lk 
11:23 the saying of Mk 9:40 "Whoever is not against us is for us" 
becomes "Whosoever is not with me is against me, and whosoever 
gathereth not with me scattereth." 

On the other hand Mt enlarges in verses 6-14 on the theme of 
Stumbling (Mk 9:42). He recognizes in the Markan verse a logion of 
S also given in Lk 17 :1 f . in fuller form and continues the Q context hi 
verses 15 and 21 f. (=Lk 17:3f.). Following his regular method 
Mt intertwines now his Markan and non-Markan material, taking 
verses 8 f . from Mk, though their connection is only verbal, and add- 
ing in verses 12-14 the appropriate parable of the Lost Sheep (Lk 15: 
3-7). The intervening verse 10 (P) may be derived from oral tradi- 
tion, and the closing verse (14) is editorial; but in spite of the some- 
what heterogeneous make-up, whose most incongruous element, verses 
8f., owe their inclusion to Mk, the agglutination is well adapted to 
Mt's purpose. It reflects the spirit as well as the style of Jesus in its 
hot indignation against those who take advantage of the weak and 
friendless (the "little ones" of verse 10); for we have not only the 
parallel in Lk 17:1 if. to prove the authenticity of the utterance but 
also Paul 's repeated appeals to the example of Jesus in his entreaties 
that no "stumbling-block" or "occasion of falling" be placed before 
the feet of the "weak brother." 

Mt can well afford to spare the curious logion "Everyone shall be 
salted with fire" (Mk 9:49) and the editorial close of the Markan 
discourse (9:50b) for the sake of this characteristic saying on the 
guardian angels of the defenseless, misunderstood though it commonly 
is. Its connection with verses 6-9 is so admirable as to make its 
derivation from S highly probable, since we can account for omission 
by Lk as due to Gentile unfamiliarity with the Jewish doctrine of 
angelic "advocates" at the divine court of justice. The "little ones" 
of the saying, as explained above, are the poor, the weak, the friend- 
less. Clement of Rome in quoting the logion renders it fairly "one of 
my elect." Just as Jesus undertakes to be himself Advocate in heaven 
for those who confess him upon earth (Mt 10:32 f. = Lk 12:8 f.) so it 
is assumed in contemporary Jewish belief that in the heavenly court 



406 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of justice the Judge of all the earth, whose special attribute it is to 
befriend the widow, the orphan and the oppressed, grants readier 
access into his presence ("seeing the face of God") to those "guard- 
ian" angels who seek redress for the wrongs of the poor. It is a pity 
that the obscurity of the allusions to current belief should lead to the 
omission of so typical a logion of Jesus in ancient times, or to its 
misunderstanding today. 

The group Mt 18:6 f., 10, led over in S (as it does hi Mt save for the 
inclusion from Mk of verses 8 f ., the spurious verse 11 and the supple- 
ment of the parable of the Lost Sheep) to the sayings on Restoration 
of the erring, and Forgiveness of Brethren (Mt 18:15-21 = Lk 17:3 f.). 
Here Mt expands by inserting in verses 16-20 certain principles of 
church procedure highly Jewish both in form and substance, while 
Ev. Naz. appends the comment that sin was found in the prophets 
themselves after their anointing with the Spirit (cf. Is. 6:5-7). This 
binding together of church rules with authentic sayings of Jesus 
exemplifies the process we are seeking to elucidate, a process of practi- 
cal application as indispensable today as in the times of Paul or Mt. 
Once more, as in 15:15, Mt introduces "Peter" as interlocutor for 
obtaining the expression of Jesus' mind. 

The utterance employs the hyperbolic, paradoxical form so char- 
acteristic of Jesus' utterances against Pharisaic legalism (cf. 5:23f., 
39 f.; 7:3-5; 23:24). As against the legalist's limitation of retaliation 
Jesus had called for an application of divine redemptive love as free 
of limit as God 's own (5 :39 f .) ; here, as against the mere inculcation of 
a large measure of forgiveness he demands that the spirit of forgiveness 
shall have no limit. 

The interjected rules of church procedure (verses 16-20) build 
upon the wider principle laid down in the logion "Rebuke a brother, 
but if he change his mind forgive him" (verse 16 = Lk 17:3). Mt 
proceeds to legislate for the case where the brother is not "restored." 
First, the scriptural requirement as to witnesses must be met (verse 
16; cf. Dt. 19:15). The last resort is to "the church." Its unfavorable 
verdict entails a sentence of exclusion, exactly as in synagogue pro- 
cedure. Power to "bind and loose" belongs to it (verse 18; c/,16: 
19). Not only so, but the same exalted claims are made here for 
church authority as appear in Acts 15:28, where the "decrees" of the 
apostles and elders assembled "with the whole church" are treated as 
an utterance of "the Holy Ghost." This is no Christian innovation 
but a common claim of the Synagogue for its official utterances. The 
Church's conviction that its united prayer avails with God as well 
as its formal decision in questions of conduct, and that God's own 
Spirit, as it had been with Jesus, continues where brethren gather "in 
his name," only translates into Christian form and carries onward the 



THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 407 

reverent sense of divine authority attached by Jewish worshippers 
to the formal utterances of their tribunals. 

Mt closes his Discourse with a typical parable, The Unforgiving 
Servant (18:23-35). It offers no new teaching, it does no more than 
expand the principle more concisely expressed in the Lord's Prayer 
with Mt's comment attached (6:12,14 f.). But it is full of meaning as 
expressing the deep longing of our evangelist, as well as of the church 
whose mouthpiece he is, for that Unity of the Spirit which Paul makes 
the climax of his entreaty for the churches (Gal. 5:15; Phil. 2:lff.; 
Eph. 4:1-16). True, the procedure is fitted to the need of the individ- 
ual local church, but behind it lies the aspiration which the Ephesian 
evangelist places on the lips of Jesus as his supreme "highpriestly" 
prayer (Jn 17:20f.). 

The form given by Mt to his appeal for unity in the brotherhood is 
indeed widely different from Paul 's or Jn 's. It is characteristic of him 
that he should use as the means for attaining his high purpose the 
threat of everlasting torment for refusal to display the forgiving 
spirit. But this is not all that the Discourse contains. We should 
remember the service Mt renders in bringing together both doings 
and sayings of Jesus applicable to this vital problem. His fourth Book 
places in the hands of those who "had the rule" over the churches 
the wisdom of Jesus bearing upon the healing of strife. In both 
Divisions, narrative Introduction and closing Discourse, Mt has 
faced the crucial problem of Church Unity and sincerely sought to 
apply to it the principles of the gospel. It will be worth while before 
closing our discussion of the theme to recreate hi imagination the 
perilous conditions confronting the Church at the close of the first 
century, and observe once more how Mt has turned to account in 
meeting them what still remained of Jesus ' recorded utterance. 

To Paul's mind the supreme peril of the Church was the danger of 
disruption inseparable from the transition from a Jewish to a Hel- 
lenistic basis. His great battle for the freedom wherewith Christ had 
liberated mankind from the yoke of legalism was but the opening 
conflict. The prolonged struggle which followed was a war to end war. 
It cost Paul all his free remaining years of missionary effort and 
culminated in his great peace-delegation to Jerusalem, which bore as 
its olive branch the offering of all his Greek-speaking churches. But 
beyond and above this it cost also Paul's liberty and ultimately his 
life. The prayer in which he begs the Christians at Rome to join him, 
that his "offering" may be accepted, outlining his proposed journey 
and its purpose (Rom. 15:14-33), should serve to some extent to offset 
the uncomprehending story of Acts, which tells of Paul's determina- 
tion to carry through this journey in the face of repeated warnings of 
the Spirit that "bonds and imprisonment" await him, but in its 



408 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

idealizing assumption of complete agreement among the apostles 
from the start leaves us quite in the dark as to why the issue was so 
momentous. But Paul, at least, was under no illusions as to the disas- 
trous consequences that must follow if his peacemaking journey did 
not succeed. Disruption as between Jewish and Gentile Christianity 
must in the end prove fatal to both. Paul could see this as a Christian 
statesman. In the spirit of Christian martyrdom he was ready "not 
to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the 
Lord Jesus." The sacrifice was made for the Unity of the Church. 

The point of collision over which disruption seemed likeliest to 
occur was that already described of Jewish "purity," the question of 
"clean" and "common," or "unclean." Here Paul's insistence on 
freedom from the caste system of Mosaism for his Gentile converts, 
and his practice of disregarding when among them the Jewish ablu- 
tions and distinctions of meats and sacred days, was interpreted as an- 
tinomian iconoclasm. In Jerusalem Paul was commonly reported as 
"teaching the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, 
telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the 
customs." After reading in Gal. 2:11 f. Paul's open demand at An- 
tioch that Peter continue the practice he had at first adopted in 
imitation of Paul of disregarding these distinctions it is not easy to 
deny a certain element of truth in the charge. 

As we have seen, the compromise measure proposed by James, 
which Lk puts forward as apostolic and inspired, proved futile. In 
the nature of the case the breakdown was inevitable. Nothing could 
possibly meet the situation of growing disparity between the Jewish 
and Gentile branches of the Church save frank recognition of the 
principle Peter himself is made to enunciate in Acts 15 :7 that God had 
recognized no distinction between Gentile and Jew, "cleansing by 
faith the heart" of those who had been strangers to the Mosaic dis- 
tinctions. True, Paul did his utmost to enable the scrupulous Jew 
to avoid unnecessary "defilement" by invoking the principle in- 
culcated by Jesus to avoid "stumbling the weak." He did not fail to 
urge the "strong" to follow his example, just as he was following 
Christ's, in becoming "as if under the law," when among circumcised 
converts. But in cases like that of Peter at Antioch, when Peter 
"played the hypocrite" along with Barnabas and the rest of the 
Jews under instigation of the delegates from James, it was not possible 
to silently acquiesce. This was a concerted endeavor to "compel the 
Gentiles to live as do the Jews." Concession ceased now to be a virtue. 
It became sheer "hypocrisy." Similarly the Lukan "decrees." 
Enacted as they were by the Jewish branch of the Church only, and 
laid down as "necessary" (eiravajKes) to avoid the "pollutions of 
idols" Paul was forced to resist them as a "yoke of bondage." The 



THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 409 

Jerusalem "decrees" did not solve the problem. This appears from 
Rev. 2:14, 20 and Did. vi. 3 

A more promising platform of unity is offered in the Gospel of Mk, 
whose Exile Section is devoted to just this emergency. Mk anticipates 
Mt in combining three utterances of Jesus which were applicable to 
the situation: (1) the saying on Inward Purity (Mk 7:15); (2) the 
incident of the Syrophoenician Woman; (3) a combination of three 
logia on Toleration, on Stumbling the Weak, and on Peace with one 
another in 9:33-50. 

But Mk speaks for a Roman community. He reflects something 
indeed of the substance of Rom. 14:1-15:7; but he is far too sweep- 
ingly anti-Jewish in his own attitude, and is historically incorrect in 
his depiction of that of Jesus. Mt follows Mk, but by no means 
blindly. His corrections are detailed and minute; at the same time 
his additions show that he appreciates and sympathizes with Mk's 
main contention. On the main point, the principle that "unclean- 
ness" is moral and not material, inward and not outward, he takes 
ground just as sweeping as Mk's, and (a matter of striking interest to 
the historian bent on classification of documents) he is just as sweep- 
ing as the Petrine source of Acts 10:1-11:18. Mt bases this fun- 
damental postulate on the broad ground of prophetic principle. Fitness 
to "see God," that is, to have access to the divine presence or "dwel- 
ling," is not a matter of ceremonial ablutions or externalities of ritual, 
but of inward or "heart" purity (Mt 5:8; cf. Ps. 24:3-6). Moreover 
Mt explicitly claims the authority of "Peter" for this application 
of the saying of Jesus concerning inward vs. outward "cleanness." 

However, Mt does not go to the length of Mk in attributing the sys- 
tem of ablutions to "all the Jews," nor in maintaining that Jesus by 
his utterance had "made all meats clean." On the contrary he cor- 
rectly describes the system of ablutions as a "tradition of the elders"; 
and if by inserting his allusion to the "hedge of the Law" (verses 
12-14) after the saying on Inward Purity he seems to imply that the 
distinctions of meats were also a Pharisaic innovation, the implica- 
tion is possibly not intended. 

Even if in verses 12-14 Mt does not intend to go the whole length 
of Mk 's contention that Jesus abolished the distinctions of meats, it is 
certain that he does intend in the next paragraph to bring out the 
principle of heart-cleansing "by faith." His additions to the story of 
the Syrophoenician Exorcism are clearly directed to this end. He de- 
lays Jesus' consent to the woman's entreaty and magnifies the dis- 
ciples' opposition, until he has made it unmistakably apparent that 
"faith" is a sufficient reason for abandoning the Mosaic limitations. 
In this second respect he endorses and corroborates Mk's employ- 
ment of an incident which Lk significantly omits. On the other hand 



410 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

his minute corrections exonerate Jesus from the charge of himself 
having violated the limits of his mission. 

Similar elaboration of the logion "Beware of the leaven of the 
Pharisees," which Mk had already applied to the dulness of the 
Twelve in failing to take in the significance of the two Miracles of 
the Loaves (Mt 16:5-12=Mk 14:18-21), shows that Mt applies it to 
"the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." This expression, sub- 
stituted for Mk's "Pharisees and Herod," cannot well have any other 
meaning than a survival among the disciples of their former Jewish 
prejudices. 6 In the connection it is difficult to close one's eyes to the 
origin of the great controversy in the apostolic Church among "cer- 
tain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed" (Acts 15:5); for with 
these Mt has as little sympathy as the Nazarenes themselves, who 
heartily endorsed the work of Paul. 

Mt is also more correct than Mk in tracing authority for the 
"loosing" of the Mosaic caste system to Peter rather than directly 
to Jesus himself. He has indeed no use for the compromise of the 
Jerusalem Council, and ignores (as we should expect) Peter's un- 
fortunate lapse at Antioch under pressure from James. He does 
maintain, however, with utmost boldness that Peter was authorized 
by Jesus himself to take the momentous step. For this reason in 
Book IV every possible occasion is seized to enhance the authority of 
Peter, with or without the support of the Church (16:19;18:18), to 
"loose" as well as "bind." All the larger additions to the transcribed 
narrative of Mk have hi view this object of magnifying Peter's au- 
thority. Peter, the foundation Rock of the Church, its chief under- 
shepherd, had been fully authorized to interpret and apply the saying 
about Inward Cleanness, so that in due time he might break down the 
"middle wall of partition" and carry the gospel to the Gentiles with- 
out the yoke which in Acts 15:10 Peter himself maintains "neither 
we nor our fathers were able to bear." The Petrine authority cham- 
pioned by Mt is something quite different from that maintained by 
Rome, and is ever held in check by the rebuke administered by Paul 
(Gal. 2:11 ff.). It remains nevertheless a factor not to be disregarded 
in the history of the Church. 

But Mt 's chief service in this Book for Church Leaders is his fuller 
application to the problem of Church Unity of those utterances of 
Jesus which had already been partially applied by Paul and Mk. 
His Discourse is built upon that of Mk, as usual. In its introductory 
tale of the Quarrel for Precedence and the added logia about Stum- 
bling the Weak he is in the main simply reproducing Mk (Mt 18:1-9 = 
Mk 9:33-37, 42-48). It is quite probable that in taking over with the 
rest Mk's purely ad vocem attachment of 9:43-48 Mt understands it 
6 See Appended Note IX. 



THE PROBLEM OF CHURCH UNITY 411 

to apply to those against whom Paul repeatedly warns the churches as 
"causing divisions and stumblings" (<rKavda\a). The reference in at 
least the majority of these warnings is to professed imitators of Paul 
who refused to curb their own liberty in the matter of forbidden meats 
as Paul did, but made it "a stumbling-block to the weak" (I Cor. 
8:9; cf. Rom. 14:13-23; 16:17). Mt, if not Mk before him, may mis- 
take the exhortation to pluck out the offending member of the 
body, that is, to stop at no sacrifice for the kingdom's sake (Mk 
9:43-48), as a warning to church leaders to exclude the "roots 
of bitterness." If so, his inclusion of the logion is fully in harmony with 
the chief aim of the Discourse, as well as with his own special dread of 
the teachers of "lawlessness." However this may be, Mt reaches a 
turning point of his thought thereafter as he attaches further material 
from his non-Markan sources. The heart of the teaching of Jesus on 
the issue of Church Unity was embodied in the sayings on Stumbling 
vs. Saving the Weak. 

We need not again point out how the common meeting point of 
Paul and of this most un-Pauline of our evangelists is in the example, 
on which both fall back, of the winsomeness, the forbearance, the 
gentleness of Christ. There is a lesson to be learned by the divided 
Church of today in the applications made of the word and example of 
Jesus in the great transition period of Christianity from Jewish to 
Greek soil and modes of thought. Paul, and Mk and Mt, to say 
nothing of Lk and Jn, are teachers in their own right of this difficult 
process of adaptation of the teaching to peculiarly difficult times. But 
there is no other to equal him to whom all New Testament writers 
look up, the one Teacher whose simplicity of devotion to the will of 
his Father in heaven gives a wisdom beyond that of sages, philoso- 
phers, or scribes. 



THEME V 
THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 

MT has been justly called "the most apocalyptic of our Gospels." 
Every one of its five great Discourses concludes with a more or less 
extended reference to the rewards and penalties of the Day of Judg- 
ment. In addition every opportunity afforded by the material is 
availed of for heightening the colors of the apocalyptic judgment 
scenes or emphasizing their nearness. Singleness of aim for the 
Christian is interpreted as concentration to obtain the heavenly 
reward offered to those alone whose good works bear witness in their 
behalf. "In that day" Christ as judge of the world will sentence to 
eternal fire all those who cannot meet this requirement, especially 
such as have taught "lawlessness," even though they have prophe- 
sied, exorcised, and wrought miracles in his name. 

And that Day is close at hand. As against the more general warning 
of Mk 8:38-9:1 Mt 16:27f. makes the assurance more definite and 
specific: 

For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father with 
his angels, then will he render to every man according to his work. I give 
you my word, there are some of those that stand here that shall not taste 
of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. 

In like manner, as we have seen in the introductory discussions of the 
Doom-chapter of Mk, Mt changes the emphasis in a way to trans- 
form Mk's warning against undue eschatological agitation into an 
encouragement to look for an "immediate" issue from the suffering 
the Church has undergone and the "falling away" it is now experienc- 
ing in consequence of the work of the "false prophets." Mk aims to 
repress apocalyptic excitement, after the example of Paul in I Thes- 
salonians, Mt to rekindle its sinking fires. 

This is typical both of the Jewish-christian character of the writing 
and of its relatively late date. The rapid passage of the center of 
gravity of the Church from the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian branch 
to the Greek-speaking churches of the Graeco-Roman world had 
brought about momentous changes in its character and mode of 
thought. Greek reaction against the traditional eschatology of the 
Synagogue preached by the apostles is already strongly apparent in I 
Cor. 15. From Paul's time to Polycarp's the indications are super- 
abundant of Greek reluctance to take over Jewish ideas of the resur- 

412 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 413 

rection (in the flesh) and (apocalyptic) judgment. Antioch, where 
Polycarp's older contemporary Ignatius wages intense warfare for 
these doctrines in their crudest form against docetic heretics, is a 
hotbed of Jewish-Greek controversy in the Church at the very period 
when Mt is first coming into circulation. Moreover the complaints of 
moral relaxation so loudly brought on the Jewish-christian side against 
brethren of Gentile origin and modes of thought (complaints which 
must have had some foundation in view of the urgent appeals of Paul 
to his churches to avoid such "stumbling-blocks" to the Church of 
God) are quite naturally associated, at least in the minds of contend- 
ers for "the faith once for all delivered to the saints," with the rapid 
waning of the expectation of "judgment to come." The "false 
teachers," says Polycarp, "pervert the oracles of the Lord to their 
own lusts, and deny the resurrection and judgment." The Pastoral 
and the Johannine Epistles show how vivid was the Church's ap- 
prehension of this moral relaxation. The Epistles of Jas., Jude, and II 
Pt show to how large an extent the blame for it was laid, justly or 
unjustly, at the door of the "vain talkers," the deniers of the historic 
tradition on the side of its physical reality. It was laid especially to 
the deniers of the physical resurrection and second Coming of Jesus 
to judge the world. As we have seen, the appearance of Mt furnished 
the Church with exactly the weapon it desired to meet these parlous 
conditions. Mt's disagreements with Mk and Lk were adjusted as 
rapidly as possible, where Mk and Lk had previously circulated with 
authority, until the Jewish-christian record became so completely 
"the" Gospel par excellence as to make the acceptance of the fourth 
Gospel in some quarters difficult or even impossible. 

The apocalypticism of Mt marks, therefore, a very definite stage 
in the process of adjustment of the gospel to its function in the forma- 
tion of a genuine world-religion. It marks the swing of the pendulum 
after the death of Paul toward the Jewish branch of the Church, 
a necessary step for the conserving of its best historic heritage; also a 
thoroughly eirenic and catholic-minded step, so far at least as the 
orthodox Greek-speaking churches are concerned, however bitter its 
denunciations of the teachers of "lawlessness." 

But this step was not the last. The final step was taken from the 
Hellenistic side and was at least equally eirenic and, equally con- 
servative of the historic paratheke, the "entrusted" gospel. The 
Fourth Gospel, published, not long after Mt, from Ephesus, at least 
in its ultimate form, represents this final swing of the pendulum. 

Jn undertakes the most difficult of the harmonistic adjustments 
between Jewish and Greek modes of thought, the eschatological, 
and undertakes it in a spirit of the most delicate and tactful consid- 
eration. 



414 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

The fourth evangelist alters the whole scheme of Gospel composition 
shown in the Synoptic treatment of the Doom-chapter, by substitut- 
ing the mystical discourses of the upper room and the Highpriestly 
Prayer for the Synoptists' lurid depiction of vengeance on Jerusalem 
and second coming to Judgment. In Jn apocalypticism is displaced, 
but tactfully. The Farewell of Jesus (Jn 14) begins with acceptance 
(for substance) of the doctrine of heavenly "mansions;" "if it were 
not so I would have told you." 1 But the discourse proceeds to de- 
velop a higher sense of the "dwelling together" of the disciple, his 
Lord and the Father, a mutual indwelling wholly of the order which is 
spiritual and timeless. Thus the manifestation "not unto the world" 
(verse 22) comes to take its rightful place alongside of the cruder 
doctrine it is destined to supersede, and comes without contention in 
the true spirit of peace. This mystical sense of the divine " indwell- 
ing" (mishkari) builds on ideals maintained by Paul (II Cor. 6:16) 
and the seer of Rev. 21 :22 f . It has really better foundation in Hebrew 
prophecy (e.g., Ez. 37:27, Zech. 2:10f.) than the cosmological spec- 
ulations of apocalypse. 

The real problem of the practical interpreter today is like that of the 
fourth evangelist, to do full justice to the historic sense of those apoca- 
lyptic ideas native to every Jewish mind which Mt so ardently 
champions, while at the same time elucidating that inner core of 
individual faith characteristic of Jesus himself, which made practica- 
ble the ultimate adjustment to Hellenistic ideas; an adjustment 
wherein the fourth evangelist takes by far the largest part. 



The earliest writings of the New Testament, Paul's Thessalonian 
Epistles, are among the most vivid in their presentation of that Son 
of Man doctrine which formed the very spear-point of Christian 
propaganda. The place which the doctrine of Christ's second coming 
to judgment occupied in the missionary preaching not of Paul only 
but of all "apostles" may be judged from Lk's sample sermon of Paul 
at Athens, so strikingly confirmed by Paul's own account of his 
"entering in" at Thessalonika (I Thess. 1:10). At Athens Paul 
preached "Jesus and the resurrection." He declared that God had 
"appointed a day in the which he would judge the world in righteous- 
ness by that man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given 
assurance unto all men in that He hath raised him from the dead." 
Gentiles might scoff at the Jewish form of the belief in divine retribu- 
tion, but its substance was in accordance with the deep-conviction of 

1 Cf. Eth. Enoch xlv. 2-5 "My Elect One shall sit on the throne of his glory 
and make choice among their deeds (c/. Mt 25:31-46), and their mansions mil 
be innumerable." 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 415 

the times. Paul 's depiction of the "wrath of God " in Rom. 1 :18-2 :16, 
to be "revealed in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, 
according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ" has often been compared to 
contemporary Stoic and Cynic diatribes; it probably stands still 
closer to the street preaching of Pythagorean and Orphic "Salvation- 
ists." A Felix might credibly be represented as trembling while Paul 
reasoned of "righteousness and self-control and the judgment to 
come," because Paul's words were uttered with an intensity of convic- 
tion unrivalled even among the most ardent of Gentile moralists, 
while on the substance of the matter there was no disagreement. "Be 
not deceived, God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth that shall 
he also reap " was axiomatic in all quarters. And in addition men were 
convinced that the cup of human wickedness was full to overflowing. 
Judgment must soon come. 

It was in the same spirit that John the Baptist had preached in 
Judea, uttering the classic burden of the prophets, "Wash you, make 
you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes." 
Jesus himself had taken up the cry with added earnestness. The great 
Day was at hand. 

Of the authenticity of Jesus' repeated warnings of the impending 
Day of Jehovah there can be no more doubt than of his conception 
of its general nature nor of its imminence. His parables urging to 
watchfulness have this apocalyptic background. Their point is time- 
less because the duty urged is readiness to give account to Him that 
looketh not on the outward man but upon the heart. Yet how un- 
intelligible would they have been to the hearers, as well as unchar- 
acteristic of the human simplicity of the Speaker, had they not 
sprung from the accepted apocalyptic conviction of the coming to 
judgment of Jehovah's representative! If we trace a distinction be- 
tween the individual message of Jesus and the background of conven- 
tion to which it had to be adjusted to be intelligible, at least let us go 
back toward it through the known beliefs of the apostolic age which 
transmits the record. To the Church of the apostolic time the fa- 
vorite self-designation of Jesus was "the Son of Man"; not so much 
because he had actually employed it with greater frequency as 
because he had frequently spoken of the messianic restoration which 
to them was "the Day (or Coming) of the Son of Man." On at least 
one occasion Jesus himself had used this term in appealing to the 
vindication his Father would surely give him, were it only beyond the 
grave. His words had been reminiscent of Daniel's vision of the 
bestowal of the enduring kingdom (Mt 16:27 f.; cf. Dan. 7:13 f.), and 
this appeal inevitably conveyed the sense that Jesus himself would 
play the part of Israel's representative in the Danielic scene, the Son 
of Man who receives the kingdom at the judgment-seat of the Ancient 



416 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

of Days. After Calvary to believe in Jesus at all his disciples could only 
conceive of him as the Son of Man, destined to return "on the clouds 
of heaven" after having received the kingdom from his Father. We 
need feel no surprise, then, if to them this "self-designation" soon 
eclipsed all others in importance, and carried with it many connota- 
tions which Jesus himself would have accepted only in a very qualified 
sense, if at all. The "Son," or as darker days drew on, the "Servant," 
might well have served more adequately to express the distinctive 
messianic self-consciousness of Jesus; but to the Church, which 
carried forward the campaign for repentance in view of the approach- 
ing Day, the title most in evidence could only be "the Son of Man." 

This title is in itself expressive of the apocalypticism of the primitive 
Church. True, it is absent from Paul, its place taken by terms more 
intelligible to Greek ears, such as "the man from heaven" (I Cor. 
15 :47 f .) ; but the idea expressed by it is very vividly present, as we 
have seen. It is used in the fourth Gospel, though in a modified sense. 
Its common use in all the Gospels, though scarcely ever outside, and 
almost invariably in utterances placed in Jesus' own mouth, proves 
that to the apostolic Church it stood in a very special way for the claim 
made by Jesus himself upon his generation. If he could say to those 
who had stood by him through the hardships and perils of his vain 
struggle to win Israel back to her allegiance, alluding to the Psalm- 
ist's hope for the renewal of the city of David, "I covenant unto 
you a kingdom as my Father hath covenanted to me, in the regenera- 
tion ye shall sit on thrones judging the tribes of Israel," the messianic 
kingship to which he believed himself called of God certainly in- 
volved a messianic judgment. The "thrones of judgment" which 
would secure justice for the poor and oppressed among the people 
(Ps. 72:2-4), "thrones of the house of David," would not be occupied 
by subordinates while that of the Son of David himself remained 
empty. Hence some part in this judgment belongs to him also. 

Jesus, with all his humility and self-abnegation, felt that he could 
not be true to the call of God if in face of the cross he turned back from 
the responsibilities of leadership. Now that all roads seemed closed 
save that to Calvary, and the issue must be carried to God 's own heav- 
enly tribunal, we may be sure he would not hesitate to take upon 
himself at least the function of the Danielic Son of Man, the repre- 
sentative of Israel who pleads at God's judgment-seat for vindication 
against her mighty adversaries. 

The modern devout mind is reluctant to admit what would at first 
appear an assumption on Jesus' part of a function belonging only to 
God. Something of the same reluctance was felt by Gentile converts 
in the days of the fourth Gospel, if we may draw an inference from 
the painstaking defense in Jn 5:22-30 of this particular function of 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 417 

"the Son of Man." The apocalyptic world-assize is logically super- 
seded in Jn 3:17-21. A second Coming to judgment can have no 
further meaning after an automatic self-judgment effected by men's 
acceptance or rejection of the Messenger at his first Coming. So 
speaks the Hellenistic evangelist in unmistakable echo of Paul's 
great words in Rom. 8 :1 ff . As we have seen, his quiet elimination of 
all the judgment scenes of Synoptic teaching in the discourses of the 
upper room bear out this sweeping advance of doctrine. Nevertheless 
in Jn 5:22-30 the doctrine of a messianic judgment by the Son of 
Man is back again. An hour is coming when " all that are in the tombs 
shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good 
unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done ill unto the 
resurrection of judgment." And not only is the apocalyptic function 
back again but elaborately defended. This claim of the Son to exercise 
the function of messianic Judge, says Jn 5 :30 f ., is no self-exaltation. 
It has abundant divine witness. Nor does it lack anything of the 
infallible wisdom of Him that looketh upon the heart : 

I can of myself do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is right- 
eous: because I seek not mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. 

Thus our Hellenistic evangelist by resort to his doctrine of the in- 
carnate Logos succeeds in making room for the traditional title Son 
of Man, together with its traditional implications, at the same time 
that he cuts the ground from under all the awe-inspiring phantas- 
magoria of apocalypse. 

The bridge thus flung across the chasm between the historical 
utterances of Jesus and the apprehension of a later age schooled in 
different moulds of thought is a dizzy one. We feel no wonder that to 
this day only the strongest heads appear willing to attempt the pas- 
sage. In reality Jesus' actual words can only have been of the type to 
which his hearers were accustomed. More than that; his thoughts, 
to be sincerely in harmony with his words, and to give to his words 
that ring of sincerity and conviction which no mere allegory or 
symbolism can take on, must have moved in the conventional chan- 
nels of the time. He thought of demon-possession as his fellow- 
Galileans thought of it, or he could not have conveyed to them the 
sublime religious lesson that he did in his work of exorcism. He 
thought of the coming judgment-day as did the man that he revered 
beyond all that are born of women, else he could not have taken up 
the message of John the Baptist with the ardor and conviction that 
made it possible for his disciples to rally again to his standard even 
after Calvary had seemed to give the lie to all their hopes. 

On the other hand there is no need to exaggerate the contrast. 
Mt's eschatology represents the extreme of reaction against Hel- 



418 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

lenistic denial of the resurrection and judgment. In his closing great 
Discourse this evangelist has scraped together everything which 
could be found in the tradition of Jesus' teaching to emphasize that 
which to him is the only true eschatology, an indispensable buttress for 
faith and morals. Grouping and wording are also Mt's, nor has he 
scrupled to present what he ardently and sincerely believes Jesus 
would have said. His closing utterance, one of the grandest presenta- 
tions from all antiquity of the apocalyptic picture of the final con- 
summation, has practically nothing that can be traced back to the 
specific teaching of Jesus save the single principle already voiced in 
Mk 9 :37, 41 and parallels. True, that is the very heart of all. But if 
we had no other witness than Mt's by which to judge of the teaching 
of Jesus, how different would be our conception! 

Mt's picture of the Son of Man shortly to return for judgment 
upon "all nations" has suffered a sea-change in the sixty years or 
more of waiting for the second Coming. For one thing it is no longer 
judgment for "the twelve tribes of Israel" that Mt has in view when 
God grants the "restoration." It is now all humanity in all genera- 
tions past or to come. Pauline missions had made the extension 
inevitable. Jesus' thought contemplates a Messiah who intercedes 
for his people at the throne of the Ancient of Days, a Messiah who 
promises to acknowledge there those who have confessed him before 
men. But such functions express only the germ of that idea which was 
soon to be heralded throughout the Empire, the conception of inter- 
cession for the world by one who offers his own blood as the price of 
the "reconciliation," and who stands as the only Mediator and Ad- 
vocate for sinful humanity. To claim the office of Son of Man as heir 
of the creation and judge of all mankind may be a logical extension of 
the original meaning of the words when the end in view is universal- 
ized; but it surely is an extension, and a great one, beyond the hope 
which contemplates only the winning for Israel of that freedom and 
justice which are to be hers according to prophecy under the reign 
of the Son of David, once her heart is "turned back again" to Je- 
hovah. 

Moreover it is not the appeal of Jesus to the Danielic figure alone 
which has determined Mt's conception of him as Son of Man. Mt's 
employment (alone among our evangelists) of the expressions which 
accompany the title in the apocalypse of Enoch and in rabbinic 
literature of the apocalyptic type specially dear to Johanan ben 
Zacchai and to his disciple Eliezer, the "throne of glory," the "con- 
summation of all things" and the like, show clearly enough that Mt 
has not taken his conception of the figure from the utterances of 
Jesus alone. We cannot indeed doubt that Jesus spoke of himself as 
the Son of Man who as Israel's representative obtains from Jehovah 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 419 

(if need be beyond "the clouds of heaven") that kingdom which it is 
His unchangeable "decree" to give to the "little flock." The tes- 
timony of all the Gospels seems decisive as to this, nor would it be out 
of keeping with what we know of Jesus' sense of his mission. We 
cannot doubt that he promised "thrones of judgment" in the Jerusa- 
lem-to-be; for that was promised in the Passover psalm. Indeed Paul 
himself looks forward to a share in the judgment even of "angels" 
for those who are Christ's at his Coming; for to "reign with him" 
is above all things else to have part with him in the dispensing of 
justice to the poor and oppressed. In the most ancient of Church 
liturgies that we possess this is the part of those who "suffer with 
him" (II Tim. 2:11 f.). On the other hand both titles, Son of David, 
and Son of Man, are symbolic. To interpret them we need to go not 
merely to Israel's Scriptures, canonical and postcanonical, but also 
to the mind of Christ. 

ii 

From the idea of a judgment of the Son of David to that of a judg- 
ment of the Son of Man the step is not a short one, even if in the case 
of the primitive Church it was greatly accelerated by the course of 
events. The ideals of prophecy were national. It was concerned 
primarily with the welfare of Israel, world interests were secondary. 
When contact with the world-empires of post-exilic times extinguished 
the hope of national greatness apocalypse took the place of prophecy, 
transferring the scene of conflict to the heavens, where the issues at 
stake become those of all humanity. The mode of expression now 
adopted was that of grotesque oriental fancy, the mythological; 
the religious interest was broadened, individualized, universalized. 
Apocalypse undoubtedly played a very important part in the religious 
life of Israel at the beginning of our era, though after the rupture 
between Synagogue and Church the early second century saw a strong 
reaction in the former against the type of teaching now specially 
favored by the latter. In the Synagogue apocalypse was labelled the 
doctrine of the merkdba from its large use of Ezekiel's vision of the 
"chariot" (merkaba), and now, if not before, orthodox Judaism 
turned from it, leaving to the Church its new type of "prophecy." 

We have already seen what tremendous impetus was given by the 
catastrophe of Calvary to Christian conviction of the imminent 
return of Jesus as Son of Man on the clouds of heaven to judge the 
world in righteousness. The enormity of human injustice on Calvary 
must soon be reversed by "the righteous judge." We have also seen 
evidence of a parallel Hellenistic development whose conception of 
the process by which the universal reign of righteousness is to be 
ushered in is profoundly different; for the Hellenistic mode of expres- 



420 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

sion for the universal religious aspiration leans to the mystical rather 
than the mythological. As between our four Gospels Mt represents 
the one extreme, Jn the other; though neither is Mt exclusively apoc- 
alyptic nor Jn exclusively mystical. The writings of Paul present the 
most interesting example of mixture, or interchange, especially when 
account is taken of the advance from the earliest Epistles, with their 
strong emphasis on a crude Son of Man eschatology, to the latest, 
with their more spiritual ideal of departure to be with Christ. The 
existence of these two types of gospel teaching should give us pause 
before attempting to identify the essential message of Jesus with 
either. 

Strong tendencies were at work from the time of the fatal Passover 
to the formation of our earliest gospel records to enhance with the 
lurid colors of apocalypse the remembered teachings of Jesus. But 
with all reasonable allowance for these tendencies it is impossible 
not to recognize that Synoptic tradition, centering upon the theme of 
the coming judgment of the Son of Man, is far nearer to historic 
truth as regards his actual utterance than Johannine, which in 'our 
fourth Gospel makes hardly a pretense of being more than an inter- 
pretation of ideas fundamental to the Christian message which could 
in germ be attributed to him. Among these fundamentals of the 
primitive evangel is the idea of Jesus' reappearance to judge the 
world as Son of Man. It would appear to be by way of answer to 
charges of presumption in making this claim that the apologetic of 
Jn 5:30 makes Jesus say "I can of myself do nothing: as I hear (from 
God) I judge: and my judgment is righteous; because I seek not mine 
own will, but the will of Him that sent me." The evangelist's concep- 
tion of the "sending" of Jesus is based on a conception of all prophecy 
which so subordinates the human agency to a divine "possession" as 
to make the words of an Isaiah (12:38-41) or even a Caiaphas (11: 
49-52) not human words at all. 

No presumption can be charged against one who incarnates the 
eternal Logos if he undertakes even the function of universal judge. 
Neither inspiration nor incarnation can be understood by moderns hi 
this sense. Nevertheless the doctrines of incarnation and inspiration 
advanced by our fourth evangelist have their value as reflecting some- 
thing of the sense of "prophetic" authority with which Jesus actually 
spoke. Of his all-consuming sense of a divine mission to Israel there 
can be no question. Neither should it be forgotten that however 
apocalyptic in form might be the message which Jesus took over from 
the Baptist, both were more than mere apocalyptists. Especially was 
Jesus filled with the spirit of true pre-exilic prophecy, and nowhere 
more visibly so than when questions relating to his own agency were 
raised. On this issue he was emphatic in insisting that both in word 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 421 

and deed he acted not for himself nor by himself. His authority was 
"from heaven." Setting aside particular theories of incarnation and 
inspiration there is, therefore, a perfectly valid sense in which Jesus 
would heartily have endorsed the words we have quoted from Jn 
5:30 as to the authority to pronounce judgment. If he ever looked 
forward to any such function as Mt conceives he surely did so in this 
spirit of complete subordination to "the will of Him that sent" him. 
Fortunately comparative study of the Gospels enables us to take at 
least a step or two backward from the individual conceptions of this 
or that particular evangelist toward those of Jesus himself. In this 
case probably the most helpful passage is the Q logion which in its 
simpler, less apocalyptic form, and certainly its more original context, 
is given in Lk 22:28-30 as part of the institution of the Covenant 
supper. We have already noted that the saying implies a reference to 
the Psalm of thanksgiving for the Jerusalem that is to be, 

Whither the tribes go up, 

Even the tribes of Jehovah, 

A testimony for Israel, 

To give thanks unto the name of Jehovah. 

For there are set thrones for judgment, 

The thrones of the house of David. 

Its authenticity is re-enforced both by Paul's references to a judgment 
to come, in which the followers of Jesus will have part with him in 
passing sentence even upon "angels," and by the ancient Christian 
liturgy which seems to recall the promise to those who have shared 
Jesus' trials (Lk 22:28) and predicts for them a "reign" with him in 
his glory. 

We cannot be at all sure that Jesus' anticipation of a part to be 
played by him in the presence of God beyond the clouds, a part 
corresponding to that of the Son of Man who appears in Dan. 7:13 
as suppliant on Israel's behalf for the everlasting kingdom, included 
also a further part as the apocalyptic Son of Man to whom in Enoch 
is committed the judgment of the world. We can, however, at least 
be sure that the "kingdom of David" to which the Passover rejoicings 
looked forward included to his mind the executing of "judgment" 
for the "tribes of Jehovah." This judgment of the Son of David 
represents the prophetic ideal, which precedes the apocalyptic. 
Study of the context and bearing of the well-attested saying of Jesus 
on this theme should throw some light upon his conception of that 
"judgment" to which he looked forward, associating with himself the 
Twelve who had shared his trials. 

We should note first of all the occasion. It is the eve of Passover, 
the feast of Israel 's redemption. Jesus has looked forward to it with 
longing because of its symbolism; for then, as now, it looked not so 



422 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

much back as forward. Even today the Passover ritual includes an 
empty chair set for "Elijah," a refrain, "This year here, next year in 
the land of Israel; this year as slaves, next year as free men," a 
rejoicing for the "third redemption" greater than out of Egypt, 
greater than from Babylon. These prove the spirit of the festival to be 
still the same as when Jesus "desired to eat this Passover" with the 
Twelve before his martyrdom. His declaration that his desire will meet 
fulfilment only "in the kingdom of God," coupled with the tokens of a 
sacrificial death about to be accomplished, shows what sense Jesus was 
giving to the observance. Death itself was not to frustrate his hope of 
the redemption. The "new Jerusalem," the "kingdom of David," 
was to be a reality in which he and they would share. Jesus makes the 
last supper (not, to our judgment, the Passover itself, but the pre- 
paratory kiddush) a "covenant" between him and his disciples like 
the "covenant" of the Father with himself. 

He uses terms of exalted, poetic symbolism, not those of cool, delib- 
erate definition. And yet the psalm passage employed probably reflects 
for us more exactly than the apocalyptic figures of Jesus 7 preaching in 
Galilee his personal expectation of the divine judgment wherein the 
wrongs of Israel are to be righted. If we hold temporarily in abeyance 
the fervid pictures of "wrath to come" which had characterized the 
preaching of repentance since John had come "in the spirit and power 
of Elijah" if we realize that now, the work accomplished, the trials 
over, save the last, Jesus among the Twelve is encouraging them to 
look forward with something of his own indomitable faith, we shall 
appreciate better the tone of this utterance. But we must also realize 
that from the beginning there had been a difference of tone between 
Jesus' preaching and John's. His had been a proclamation of "glad 
tidings to the poor." His disciples had been "sons of the bride-cham- 
ber." The messianic judgment to which he is now looking forward 
was something prophets and kings had longed to see. It was a con- 
summation for which the prayers of Israel had ascended to God both 
day and night with greater fervency than those of the widow of the 
parable importuning the unjust judge to give her justice. This aspect 
of Jesus ' work reflects his feeling as a Jewish patriot, an aspect which 
also demands consideration; for in spite of Jesus' strong repulsion of 
everything savoring of Zealot political aims there were features of his 
work which made him for the humbler classes of Israel the true Son of 
David. Yes, even after Calvary, and as long as the mother-church in 
Jerusalem continued under control of his personal following, its 
watchword was the restoration of the ruined "tabernacle of David." 

It is quite true that Jesus had neither part nor lot with Zealot 
nationalism as such. The Pharisees, but for their legalistic trend 
would have more easily won his sympathy by their pacifistic quietism. 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 423 

The purely religious nature of the redemption to which Jesus looked 
forward made his movement quite as free as the Pharisean from all 
menace to Roman control. But this does not mean that Jesus' aims 
had not a social aspect, not to say political. Jesus' disciple Simon the 
Zealot may be presumed to have given up Zealot methods for achiev- 
ing that freedom and justice his people craved when he became a 
follower of the Nazarene. But this does not imply that Simon or any 
of his fellow-disciples had been asked to relinquish their aspirations 
for freedom and justice both social and national. On the contrary, 
their adhesion to Jesus may well have been due to their correct ap- 
prehension that freedom and justice were more surely to be won under 
this leadership than under any other. 

Neither the following which Jesus secured during his lifetime and 
retained after his death as "King of the Jews," nor his crucifixion 
under this charge by Pilate, can be wholly accounted for without 
taking into the reckoning this alleged "false witness." The pressure 
his enemies undoubtedly brought to bear upon Pilate could never 
have succeeded against a mere rabbi. The messianistic character of 
the Baptist's movement at its beginning led the suspicious Antipas to 
put John to death as a precaution. There was still enough of the same 
quasi-political character about its continuation under Jesus to give 
color of likelihood to the charge which brought him to the cross. 

The charge was thoroughly unjust. Not, however, because Jesus 
was indifferent to the social and political wrongs which had ever been 
nearest the heart of the prophets, but because he sought the remedy 
along purely religious lines. 

The historico-critical reader of the Gospels should take account of 
the intense apologetic interest of all our evangelists to make it ap- 
parent that the charge under which Jesus suffered the cross was totally 
groundless. We must go back to conditions as they were in Galilee 
even before the Church took up its mission of proclaiming the Christ 
about to descend from heaven, to appreciate that modicum of truth 
which gave the charge its color of plausibility, Jesus' adoption of the 
dangerous r61e of Messiah after the martyrdom of John. 

Social conditions were probably much more galling to the ordinary 
peasant or artisan of Galilee in Jesus' time than political. Bevan, 
Simkhovitch, Klausner and McCown have reminded us of the eco- 
nomic changes that were gradually crushing out the small peasant 
proprietor of pre-Roman times in Syria and reducing the free wage- 
earner to the level of the slaves with whom he was obliged to compete. 
The cry of the Zealot nationalist still availed to rouse the patriotic ar- 
dor of some, especially in rural Galilee; but their numbers dwindled as 
experience of the exchange from native war-lord to Roman governor 
taught the peasant farmer how slight was the alleviation of growing 



424 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

burdens of taxation and forced labor which any such exchange could 
be expected to bring. There were dreams of freedom under native 
sovereignty. It was to come from the tribe of Judah or the tribe of 
Levi according as one looked to the prophecies of the Son of David or 
fixed his hopes on some scion of the Hasmonean family. For Herod 
Agrippa, who on his mother's side was a Hasmonean, made this a 
cornerstone of his policy. But to men of sober mind the political 
prospect was anything but alluring. There had come to be a time 
when the descendants of the Maccabean patriots would gladly have 
accepted a governor at the hands of a Seleucid king in Antioch, if 
thereby they might be rid of their own Hasmonean ruler. Lately, 
within easy recollection of Jesus 7 contemporaries, a delegation had 
gone from Judea to Rome to ask incorporation into the Empire rather 
than continue nominal independence under Archelaus. The longing 
for political freedom should not be overrated. If the Pharisees could 
get along under the yoke of Rome with only a religious hope of free- 
dom in "the world to come" to lighten it we may probably conclude 
that the average fisherman, artisan, or peasant landholder of Galilee 
was ready to put up with such measure of peace and order as Roman 
government brought, if only he were permitted to answer according to 
his custom and ability the ever-pressing questions, What shall we eat 
and what shall we drink, and wherewithal shall we be clothed? Native 
justice was hardly an improvement on Roman. 

Not political so much as social and economic inequality was sorely 
felt. Conditions as reflected in S, or in the L source of Lk are not 
easily borne. The widow vainly importuning for justice, the penniless 
Lazarus begging food at the door of the heartless rich man, the labor- 
ers standing all through the heat of the day in the village market- 
place, ready enough to work but idle "because no man hath hired 
us," these tell of the real unrest. These are the same harsh social con- 
ditions which call forth the indignation of James. On the one side we 
see servile flattery of the rich (Jas. 2:2-4), on the other oppression of 
the poor by corruption or misuse of the courts. There is luxury and 
delicate living at the cost of laborers in the fields whose wages have 
been kept back by fraud (Jas. 2:7; 5:4-6). Just such conditions called 
forth the fiercest invective of the ancient prophets, and they cannot 
have failed to stir the heart of Jesus. Easily can we picture him in the 
synagogue along with his fellow-artisans of Nazareth, or later amid 
the group of peasant-farmers, fisher-folk or laborers who hung on his 
words of "glad tidings to the poor," as all offer together the prayer 
appointed from generations before the coming of "the Son of David," 

restore our judges as formerly, and our counsellors as at the beginning; 
and remove from us sorrow and sighing; and reign over us, Thou Lord 
alone, in grace and mercy, and give us justice. 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 425 

The prayer has the response, 

Blessed art Thou, Lord the King, for Thou lovest righteousness and 
justice. 

Again the prayer resumes, 

Cause speedily to flourish the offspring of David Thy servant, and let 
his horn be exalted in Thy salvation: for Thy salvation do we hope every 
day. 

And the response is, 

Blessed art Thou, Lord, who causest the horn of salvation to flourish. 

If the "horn of salvation" to arise "in the house of David" (cf. Lk 
1 :69) meant anything to the common people of Israel in Jesus' time 
it surely meant help from the great King who "loveth righteousness 
and justice." For what else did David celebrate in the Psalm for a 
greater than he to sit upon his throne? (Ps. 72.) 

Give the king Thy judgments, God, 

And Thy righteousness unto the king's son. 

Let him judge Thy people with righteousness, 

And Thy poor with justice. 

The mountains shall bring peace to the people, 

And the hills, through righteousness. 

Let him judge the poor of the people, 

And save the children of the needy, 

And break in pieces the oppressor. 

* 

All kings shall fall down before him; 

All nations shall serve him. 

For he will deliver the needy when he crieth, 

And the poor that hath no helper. 

He will have pity on the weak and needy, 

And the lives of the needy he will save. 

He will redeem their life from oppression and violence, 

And precious will their blood be in his sight. 

One cannot well doubt that to the common people of Jesus ' time the 
"thrones of judgment" of the New Jerusalem, the "thrones of the 
house of David" were a vivid reality in their dream of "the third 
redemption." If Jesus gave assurance of "thrones of judgment" in 
his parting words to the Twelve at the Covenant supper, it can only be 
that he looked forward to taking part with his followers in reversing 
the conditions of injustice and wrong under which Israel had so long 
been groaning. Yes, we must either discredit one of the best attested 
logia of the Gospels or else admit that Jesus dared to promise this 
under the very shadow of the cross in the name of the Father who had 
"covenanted" to him a reign of justice and righteousness. 



426 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Such, then, was the messianic "judgment," the prophetic ideal, to 
which we may be certain Jesus looked forward, a "judgment" in which 
he, in company with those who had stood by him in his days of trial, 
should take the leading part. This judgment of the Son of David has 
indeed a somewhat different aspect from that judgment of the Son of 
Man which came soon to occupy the center of the stage for the primi- 
tive Church. But post-exilic Judaism saw the development of the 
apocalyptic out of the prophetic ideal. May it not well be from the 
simpler conception reflected in Jesus' application of the Passover 
theme to his own messianic calling, that the universalized apocalyptic 
conception of apostolic times has grown? 



111 

It was inevitable that Mt's fourth Book should lead up to a great 
Discourse on the Consummation as the climax of his Gospel. Such 
is the natural development in similar works of edification such as the 
DidacM; moreover the plan of Mk, rigidly followed by Mt since the 
middle of his Gospel, made this disposition of his remaining material 
a certainty. For the first part of Division A there was very little 
beyond Mk's story of the Perean journey, a story which is quite 
probably filled out by Mk with anecdotes of uncertain date and 
occasion. After this, however, Mk gave a relatively full report of the 
Passover visit to Jerusalem, which Mt makes basic, though Lk from 
this point on rests more largely upon L. Mt finds room in the story of 
the Perean journey to insert an almost completely rewritten form of 
the logion about the thrones of the house of David, transferring it 
(together with its context of the Quarrel for Precedence which Mk 
had already given this earlier placing) from the scene of the Covenant 
supper. He has one other much larger addition to make, the parable 
of the Dissatisfied Wage-earners (Mt 20:1-16). For this Mt finds a 
place after the saying of Mk 10:31 "But many that are first shall be 
last and the last first." As we have seen in our introduction to Book 
V the parable may well be derived from S, though its location by Mt 
at this point appears to be due to misapprehension of the sense. 

In the story of the Passover visit to Jerusalem Mt's transcription 
of Mk needs little comment. We have noted already the slight addi- 
tion concerning Acclamation in the Temple (above, p. 116) also the 
Q addition after Mk's account of the demand of the Sanhedrin for the 
authority Jesus had exercised in cleansing the temple (Mt 21 :28-32 = 
Lk 7:29 f.), a case in which the Matthean placing is much preferable 
to Lk's. We have also considered the rewriting of the Q parable of 
the Slighted Invitation, a recast whose features readily explain why 
Mt inserts it after that of the Usurping Husbandmen (Mt 21 :33^16 = 
Mk 12:1-12). Thus the three Vineyard parables, the Penitent 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 427 

Younger Son (21:28-32), the Usurping Husbandmen (21:33-46), and 
the Slighted Invitation (22:1-14) form a group well adapted to the 
situation to which Mt is leading up. He now subjoins only Mk's 
narrative introduction to the discourse, viz., the Debates in the Tem- 
ple with Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes (Mt 22:15-46=Mk 12: 
13-37), to conclude Division A. 

Division B rests as usual primarily on Mk. Of its three long chap- 
ters the first, denouncing Woes on Scribes and Pharisees as responsible 
for all the disaster Israel has suffered (ch. 23), has indeed but a slender 
foundation in Mk 12:38-40. The remainder consists largely of Q, 
expanded by some P additions. Verses 8-10 forbid the application to 
Church teachers of honorific titles applied to leaders of the Synagogue. 
Verses 15-22 denounce the propaganda and false casuistry of the 
scribes and Pharisees. The rest of the total of Seven Woes on "scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites" is drawn from S and capped with the 
Plaint of Rejected Wisdom (23:34-39=Lk 11:49-51; 13:34f.), which 
Mt links on by the bitter words, 

Fill ye up, then, the measure of your fathers, 

Ye serpents, ye brood of vipers, 

How can ye escape the judgment of Gehenna! 

Whatever the context from which Mt draws his material for this 
denunciation the grouping and elaboration are too near to that of 
12:33-37 for us to mistake here the editorial hand. 

The second element of the Discourse (ch. 24) again rests on Mk 
with but slight admixture from S (verses 26-28 =Lk 17:23f., 37 
supply the original from which Mk 13:21-23=Mt 24:23-25 has been 
taken), and only a switching at the close to the fuller, Q form (verses 
37-51 =Lk 17:22-37; 12:39-46). Here, however, in the exhortations 
to Watchfulness for the End, Mt finds the nucleus and suggestion 
for his parting message from Jesus to the Church. Two parables, one 
of Readiness for the Coming (25:1-13), the other on Constancy in 
Well-doing (14-30), lead up to the finale, a grandiose description of the 
Judgment at the end of the World (31-^16). 

The first of the two parables (Wise and Foolish Virgins) merely 
expands the figurative beginning of the Q section last employed (cf. 
Lk 12:35-38); the second (Entrusted Funds) recasts that related by 
Lk as given on a different occasion (Lk 19: 12-27). 2 Taken together 
with the scene of Judgment by the Son of Man the three utterances 
supply an ending to the Discourses of Jesus admirably adapted to 
Mt's purpose. They furnish just that message from the Lord which 
his Ephesian contemporary constructs in the form of professed 
apocalypse. The "Prophecy of John" given out to "the churches of 

2 See above, pp. 94 ff. 



428 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

Asia" in 93 A.D. seeks to rekindle their " first love" and zeal for 
"good works" by an assurance that the Lord's Coming is near and 
"his reward is with him." Mt hopes to stem the tide of moral relaxa- 
tion and the inroads of the false prophets who teach "lawlessness," 
by sanctions of everlasting reward and punishment. As we have 
seen, this is characteristic of Jewish-christian effort at the time. In 
the struggle against "acute Hellenization" and the perils it involved 
in the post-apostolic age the remedy of eschatological sanctions was 
eagerly applied by leaders of the Church. For centuries it remained 
their strongest bulwark against moral laxity. Christianity of the 
Graeco-Roman world as a whole responded to the expectation of a 
Christ about to descend from the right hand of the Father "to judge 
the quick and the dead." Eighteen centuries have scarcely dimmed it, 
or relaxed the tension of its moral spur. 

But the twentieth century experiences already a spreading decay 
in its efficacy. On the other hand there has come with this growing 
loss of cogency in the cry "Flee from the wrath to come" a dawning 
apprehension that perhaps Jesus' gospel of peace, his message of 
reconciliation to the compassionate Father, did not chiefly consist of a 
new and higher legalism, appealing with redoubled vehemence to 
men 's hope of reward and fear of punishment. Today men are asking 
whether the Hellenistic Gospel, in spite of its later date and less 
historical method, does not do better justice than the Synoptic to the 
true "heart of Christ." 

It cannot be claimed as respects the form of its eschatological 
teaching that the fourth Gospel can compare with its predecessors in 
giving the actual utterances of Jesus. Probably the evangelist himself 
would not venture to advance such a claim. The fourth evangelist 
is not attempting to record but to translate, and his translation is not a 
mere rendering of words into equivalent words of another tongue, but 
a rendering of thoughts into equivalent thoughts of a different world 
of religious apprehension. Jn's predecessor had been Paul. And in 
the Pauline half-completed transition from Jewish apocalypse to 
Hellenistic mysticism we have the best example of that teaching of 
the living Spirit which is claimed by Jn, a teaching without which 
Christianity itself is doomed to go the way of all mere book-religion. 
In bringing to a close our Studies in Mt with a modern valuation of 
that theme which in Mt's time might well seem the greatest and most 
momentous of all, we must make some attempt to follow the example 
set by Paul and Jn. We must endeavor to penetrate the mind of 
Christ in his conviction of the triumph of righteousness. For in 
Jesus ' time, and among his fellow countrymen that goal of humanity 's 
religious hope was represented by the doctrine of Jehovah 's Judgment 
and the establishment by divine intervention of the kingdom of David. 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 429 



IV 

We have seen that the later, universalized form of the Jewish hope 
of redemption is expressed in apocalypse. The kingdom looked for- 
ward to is "not of this world" but a new, supernatural, glorified 
world. The conflict is no longer with Edom or Moab or Ammon or 
Syria, not with Egypt or Babylonia, but with the powers of evil "in 
the heavenly places," authors of the curse that lies upon humanity. 
The deliverance also comes not from the arm of flesh, but "legions of 
angels." Today the fact that Jesus' conception of exorcism belongs to 
this obsolete mode of thought no longer makes difficulty for thoughtful 
students of the New Testament. We realize that the kernel of un- 
alterable religious truth must be extricated from the shell of tran- 
sitory convention. In like manner the parables of the kingdom are 
clothed in the garb of contemporary Jewish thought; they presuppose 
the background of apocalypse. But there is something of Jesus' own 
in them which gives them a meaning beyond even the message of 
John. With John the coming of the kingdom was imminent. With 
Jesus the kingdom itself was immanent. The inference is clear. If not 
today then in the easily foreseeable future Christianity will be con- 
strained for its very life to apply a similar process of historically 
sympathetic appreciation to the whole domain of New Testament 
eschatology. Only then can we make of this obsolete mode of thought 
an effective application. Its moral values will be lost, the "fruits of 
righteousness" will not appear, if we take translation to mean the 
mere substitution of word for word and letter for letter. 

Jesus' doctrine of judgment to come had not yet been fully uni- 
versalized by apocalyptic infusion. Still less can this be said of the 
preaching of the Baptist which Jesus took up and carried forward. 
John's preaching of the coming wrath conforms to the prophetic 
type, almost uncontaminated by apocalyptic. Its scene is neither 
cosmic nor other-worldly, but the soil of Palestine. Its agent has no 
resemblance to Rhadamanthus, or Osiris or Ahura-mazda. The 
expectation is undoubtedly catastrophic. Redemption takes place by 
direct intervention of Jehovah on behalf of his people. But there is 
no place in John 's thought for a Danielic Son of Man, much less for 
the Enoch figure. Jehovah does not indeed appear in person. He acts 
through his "angel," as is the case even in pre-exilic thought. Had 
John's expectation been that of a visible appearance of Jehovah 
Himself he would not have used the figure of stooping down to loose 
his sandal-string in comparing himself with the "greater one" to 
come after. John thinks of himself as the herald of warning. He 
thinks of the executioner of Jehovah's wrath about to follow him as 
"the angel of the covenant" appointed at Horeb to go before the 



430 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

people to their destined place, one in whom is Jehovah's Name (His 
representative) who will be unsparing in his treatment of sin (Ex. 
23:20f.). This appears from Jesus' quotation from Mai. 3:lff. in 
combination with the Exodus passage; for in reality John 's message of 
judgment to come was simply an echo of Malachi, just as Jesus' 
thought of John was itself couched in terms of Mai. 6 :5 f . 

Except for a suffusion of the whole with the conceptions of the 
post-resurrection period embodied in the title Son of Man, Jesus' 
preaching in Galilee of judgment to come, as reported by the Syn- 
optists, is as purely prophetic and non-apocalyptic as John's. Jesus 
also looks forward to a catastrophic divine intervention which shall 
"restore the kingdom to Israel" and destroy the wicked and the 
unfaithful. If he uses the term Son of Man at this time (a matter of 
serious critical doubt) it is only in such generally conventionalized 
expressions as "the Day" or "the Coming" or "the Judgment of the 
Son of Man." The reference is impersonal and without any tendency 
on Jesus' part to identify this agent of Jehovah's judgment with him- 
self. Passages of the Galilean period in which Jesus clearly applied the 
title to himself must introduce it from later usage inasmuch as self- 
identification with this superhuman figure of Danielic or Enochic 
apocalypse would have resulted in immediate uproar instead of the 
placidity with which Jesus' auditors receive his words. 

An example of the distortion resulting from the later tendency to 
carry back the apocalyptic Son of Man doctrine into the record of 
Jesus' preaching may be seen in Mt's version of the Q warning not 
to depend on pleas of outward connection with the Judge as compared 
with Lk's. Mt has rewritten in 7:21-23 the closing exhortation of the 
discourse on Filial Righteousness, a plea to show loyalty not in lip- 
service but in a heart-renewal productive of the fruits of action. 
He transforms it into a warning against the "false prophets" destitute 
of good works. In 7:21 f. he gives an apocalyptic turn to the saying 
"Why call ye me Master, Master, and do not what I say? " by making 
it refer to the last judgment ("Not everyone that saith to me, Master, 
Master, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the 
will of my Father in heaven"), appending to it in rewritten form the 
Q warning above referred to. Comparison of the parallels will show at 
a glance how an objective reference to the impartiality of the divine 
Judge has been transformed by Mt into an implied claim on Jesus' 
part to be himself this divine Judge. 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 431 

Lkl3:26f. Mt7:22f. 

Then he will begin to say, We Many will say to me in that day, 

have eaten and drunk in thy pres- Master, Master, did we not prophesy 

ence, and thou didst walk 3 in our in thy name, and in thy name cast 

streets. But ye will say, I tell you out evil spirits, and in thy name do 

I know not whence you come. De- many miracles? Then will / declare 

part from me all ye that work un- to them, I never knew you. Depart 

righteousness. from me ye workers of lawlessness. 

On the principle above stated it is impossible to doubt that the Lukan 
form, which merely teaches that the judgment of the divine represent- 
ative pictured in the parable as "the master of the house" will be 
solely upon grounds of conduct, irrespective of race, is the more 
authentic; whereas Mt (following his constant propensity) has substi- 
tuted a personal claim on Jesus' part to be this divine Judge ("will say 
to me" "I will declare," etc.). The tendency thus noted in Mt cannot 
but react upon our judgment of his representation in other cases. 

But Jesus himself was compelled by the course of events to trench on 
the field of apocalyptic. The transition is made at Caesarea Philippi. 
Driven out from Galilee after the martyrdom of John, with a similar 
fate before his own eyes should he not consent to abandon his prophetic 
vocation, Jesus was compelled to overpass the border of other-worldli- 
ness. He could not otherwise meet the question for himself and his dis- 
ciples what would become of the cause to which they were pledged 
in case both he and they should meet a fate like John 's. The answer is 
found by virtue of a faith which reaches out for divine help even be- 
yond the grave. Scriptural warrant is sought (probably by Jesus 
himself) in Daniel's figure of "one like unto a son of man" (a mortal) 
brought on the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days to receive as 
Israel 's representative the "everlasting kingdom." We may take this 
appeal of Jesus to the prophecy of Dan. 7 :13 as the starting point for 
the later development. From this time onward the application of the 
title Son of Man, both in the original Danielic sense and also in the sense 
assumed in Enoch of universal judge, is naturally applied to Jesus in 
the records as if it had really been his own "favorite self-designation." 

The conception of messianic judgment through the Son of David 
is the common root, universalized first in Jewish apocalypse, later in 
Hellenistic mysticism. Its currency in all Jewish circles in Jesus' 
time, as well as the sense in which it was understood, is placed beyond 
dispute by the ancient prayer of the Synagogue known as the Shemoneh 
Esreh or "Eighteen" (sc. benedictions), a prayer so constantly and 
universally employed in the Synagogue as to be referred to as "the" 
Prayer. The antiquity of this litany and its close relation to Gospel 

8 So the Curetonian Syriac. 



432 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

ideas have been shown in a recent article entitled "the Q Section on 
John the Baptist and the Shemoneh Esreh." 4 When we observe the 
occasion of John 's question and the nature of Jesus ' answer it becomes 
immediately apparent that the Coming One of whom both are speak- 
ing is certainly not the dread agent of Jehovah's fiery wrath, the 
angel of the Covenant sent with winnowing fan and unquenchable 
fire to purge Jehovah 's threshing-floor. We have only to compare the 
prayers for the justice and healing to be brought by the Son of David 
in the Shemoneh Esreh (Benedictions 5-8,11, and 14 f .) to see that it is 
this ideal kingdom of the prophets (not the apocalyptists) which is in 
mind. Even if we grant to the most radical school of criticism that the 
Message of John's Disciples is a fiction designed to bring out the 
contrast between John 's followers and the Christian group, still we 
shall find ourselves compelled to take as the earliest Christian ideal 
the nationalistic of the Shemoneh Esreh and not the cosmological of 
the apocalypses with their other-worldly, non-natural imagery. 

For the earliest Christian ideal of Judgment to Come, though it 
belongs to the realm of religion, not of political ambition, and is 
thought of as introduced by catastrophic divine intervention, is in 
itself purely of the type contemplated by prophets and Psalmists. 
"Restore our judges as formerly, and our counsellors as at the begin- 
ning" is a petition contemplating the picture of Ex. 18:13-27, where 
Moses on Jethro 's advice appoints out of all the people 

"able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain." 

Of these we read that they "judged the people at all seasons; 
the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter 
they judged themselves." Similarly with the petition for the res- 
toration of Jerusalem and establishment in it of "the throne of 
David." The firstfruit of this restoration of the kingdom to Israel is 
to be justice to the widow and fatherless, the poor and him that hath 
no helper, a gift through "the offspring of David, God's servant," 
from the One who "loves righteousness and justice." But it is no 
supernatural Being who administers this justice. True, it is inau- 
gurated by God's intervention, which destroys all hostile powers 
and rebuilds Jerusalem as "a structure everlasting." But the admin- 
istration of the divine government is given over to "the offspring 
of David"; and it is the appointees of this Son of David who occupy 
the "thrones of judgment, the thrones of the house of David." 

The conception voiced by Jesus on the eve of the fatal Passover is 
identical. In spite of Mt's substitution of the apocalyptic form "In 

4 JBL, XLV Yz (1926), pp. 23-56. A date earlier than 70 A.D. for Blessing 14 
may well be doubted, but even this unquestionably reflects the messianism of 
the Synagogue in Jesus' time. 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 433 

the Regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of his 
glory" (Mt 19:28) the original of Lk 22:28 f. is completely free from 
this apocalyptic element. Jesus simply promises the fulfilment of the 
hope of Israel as expressed in the prayer for the building of Jerusalem 
in Ps. 122 and Shemoneh Esreh 14 f. The "thrones of judgment" 
which the Twelve are to occupy in the restored Zion are not places of 
power from which they may lord it over their brethren, but opportu- 
nities of vindication for all that are poor and oppressed among the 
people. The Twelve are to do what the appointees of Moses are 
expected to do in the story of Jethro ; s counsel, judge the small matters 
themselves and bring the hard causes to their Master, who reigns as 
Son of David. In this sense they exercise judgment with him and 
share in his reign as they have shared in his trials and suffering. Reign- 
ing in the sense the Gentiles give to the word is expressly repudiated 
(Lk 22:24-30). If this be a promise of reward to the Twelve the 
element of reward lies only in the larger opportunity for service, as in 
the parable of the Entrusted Funds. The real value of the teaching 
lies not in the nature of the expectation, for this only repeats in 
adapted form the longing for the reign of justice and righteousness 
embodied in Psalm and Prayer alike for the "kingdom of David." It 
lies rather in the fact that Jesus ' faith flings this assurance of God's 
victory in the teeth of the powers of darkness and death. 

The longing for a reign of righteousness and justice is as wide as 
humanity. In every monotheistic religion it seeks expression in the 
belief that 

somehow good 
Shall be the finalgoal of ill. 

The reason for the particular form it first assumed in Christianity is 
that Christianity was rooted in Hebrew soil. The doctrine of the 
kingdom of God which is central to it was an inheritance from Ju- 
daism, and this doctrine had passed through more than one stage of 
growth. With the gradual extinction of national hopes, accompanied 
by closer contact with Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek 
world empires, the older, prophetic hope for an ideal kingdom of 
David gave way to the other-worldly dreams of apocalypse. How far 
this process had proceeded in the time of Jesus it is difficult to say; 
but at least it is certain that new life in a "world to come" was now 
the central feature of religious hope for the majority of Jesus' fellow- 
countrymen and contemporaries. This new world was to be ushered in 
by catastrophic divine intervention, after which the "everlasting 
kingdom " of David would begin. Early Christian propaganda took 
over with redoubled emphasis the apocalyptic ideal of the Coming of 
the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven for judgment upon the world, 



434 STUDIES IN MATTHEW 

leaving to the little company of apostles and kindred of the Lord in 
Jerusalem the more specially social and political aspects of the hope. 

Outside the circle where the Galilean following of Jesus in Jerusalem 
continued to look for a rebuilding of the ruined "tabernacle of David" 
to form a center for a rule of righteousness over the Gentiles, Christian 
apocalypse found itself rivalled by other eschatologies of different 
type. Among these the distinctive common -feature was a reversal 
of the Jewish conception of the homeward journey of the soul. Instead 
of a gathering of the elect from the four corners of the earth toward 
Jerusalem, there to reign with the Messiah, who descends from heaven 
clothed with glory, power, and authority from Jehovah, Christians of 
Gentile origin put forward the belief "that when we die our souls are 
taken to heaven," a heresy intolerable to men of Papias' and Justin's 
way of thinking. The difference is indeed immense. The two ideals 
are literally as far apart as heaven from earth. But strangely enough 
the modern, brought up on an eschatology which to Polycarp, Papias 
and Justin would be anathema, can scarcely realize that a difference 
exists. The modern Christian insists on having both the New Jerusa- 
lem of the Jews and the mansions in the skies of Gentile eschatology. 

If, then, the hope of heaven can bridge such a chasm as this, find- 
ing no practical difference between that aspiration which dreams of 
return to Jerusalem in a restored body from burial in the ends of the 
earth, and that other which contemplates a soaring into the empyrean 
by souls which have shaken off the burden of the flesh, there should 
be no need to despair of bringing into harmony the Jewish and the 
Greek conception of the reign of righteousness, and of the divine 
power by which that reign is to be brought about. 

Paul holds that a day is soon to dawn in which God will " judge the 
world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained" (Acts 
17:31; cf. Rom. 2:16). Yet admittedly it was possible even in Paul's 
time for Christians to entertain a different view of the divine judg- 
ment. It was possible to regard it as something already achieved in 
the first coming of the Light of God into the world. Because there is a 
kind of natural gravitation of goodness toward the light and evil 
toward the darkness. As Jn has it 

He that believeth on him is not judged; he that believeth not hath 
been judged already. . . . And this is the judgment, that the light is 
come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light 
because their works were evil (Jn. 3:17-19). 

Paul believed in a real appearance of the risen Christ to judgment, 
a Day of Jehovah when we should "all be made manifest before 
the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things 
done in the body whether they be good or bad" (II Cor. 5:10). But 



THE MESSIANIC JUDGMENT 435 

he seems to realize that this conception of a "day in which God will 
judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ" is not the only form in 
which a true doctrine of divine retribution may find expression; for 
he adds immediately that this is "according to my gospel" (Rom. 
2:16), leaving room for other conceptions besides the apocalyptic. 
The modern man is constrained to avail himself of this liberty of 
choice between two methods of universalization of the common doc- 
trine. Mt, the "apocalyptic evangelist," has done his very utmost 
to win the world to the conception developed in Judaism, that judg- 
ment of the Son of Man which expresses its longing for the world-wide 
triumph of righteousness. The success which Mt's doctrine attained 
was enormous, largely because in general background and mould of 
thought it did represent the actual preaching of Jesus. But a day has 
come when form must give way to substance, when the conventional 
Jewish idea of the reign of God, its inception and its continuance, 
must give way to others of larger scope. 'Only through sympathetic 
understanding and appreciation of the prophetic, and after that of 
the apocalyptic conception, shall we be prepared to frame a consist- 
ently Christian doctrine of divine retribution, that kingdom of justice 
and righteousness which is the desire of all the nations; for the God 
that "loveth righteousness and judgment" has implanted this faith 
and hope in the breasts of all. Since the time is not far off for this 
restatement of Christian doctrine, we may well be thankful that our 
religion 's strength is derived not from its Jewish ancestry alone. From 
the very earliest times there existed also a gospel according to the 
Hellenists, a gospel for which Paul claimed and obtained unshackled 
freedom of interpretation. In this Hellenistic tradition the example 
is set of penetration beneath the transitory form to the enduring 
substance. Whatever balance is then struck between Jewish and 
Greek modes of thought, apocalypse and mysticism, our ultimate 
confidence in the coming reign of justice will still be the indomitable, 
victorious faith of Jesus Christ in the God "that loveth righteousness 

and truth." 

\ 



PART V 
APPENDED NOTES 



APPENDED NOTE I 
THE DATE OF PAPIAS 

IT is unfortunately impossible to determine within close limits the 
date of Papias' Exegeses. Since Harnack's Chronologie (1897) the 
majority of critics have tended toward Harnack's dating between 
140 and 160 A.D. (Moffatt, Introd., 1911, p. 185), but with important 
exceptions. Zahn still defends a date as early as 125, and Vernon 
Bartlet (s.v. "Papias" in HDB) would even carry this back to 115 
on the ground of Irenaeus' reference to Papias as a "comrade" 
(grcupos) of Polycarp (ob. 155), and of the close kinship of Papias' 
work with the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (c. 115). The date 
adopted in the present work, c. 140, takes middle ground between 
those advocated by the great English scholars of the last century, 
Westcott (140-150) and Lightfoot (130-140). 

Bartlet 's arguments seem equally applicable to any date earlier 
than 155, and Zahn is an avowed apologist for the Irenaean tradition 
which makes both Polycarp and Papias actual disciples of the Apostle 
John! Lightfoot and Westcott argue with greater force from the 
antignostic utterances of Papias' Preface, which suggest a date sub- 
sequent to the appearance of the Exegetica of Basilides (Alexandria, 
c. 130). This argument may perhaps be somewhat re-enforced by the 
known effect of Hadrian's decree of exile from Jerusalem (135 A.D.) 
against all circumcised persons, a decree which dispersed the body of 
"elders the disciples (or 'successors') of the Apostles," till then 
regarded as arbiters of orthodoxy for the Church catholic. Papias 
considers himself uniquely qualified for the task of declaring the true 
meaning of the "commandments delivered by the Lord to the faith" 
by his ability to report utterances of the Apostles transmitted through 
this body of "elders." But he clearly distinguishes an earlier time 
(iroTk) in which he had been able to question these "elders the disciples 
of the Apostles" on his own account (apparently) without interme- 
diary, from a later period, extending down to the time of writing, 
during which he could only question chance travellers who "came 
his way" and could report what these "elders had said as well as 
what Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord (for which 
we should probably read by change of two letters "the disciples of 
these"} were saying." If "the Elder John" can be identified (as the 
present writer has argued, following the lead of Scholten and Schlat- 
ter) with John of Jerusalem, middle link of the succession of Jerusa- 

439 



440 APPENDED NOTES 

lem "elders" in the succession of that church from 62 to 135 A.D., an 
"Elder John" whose death is dated by Epiphanius in the eighteenth 
year of Trajan (117 A.D.), the period of Papias' collection of "tradi- 
tions of the elders" will have extended at least down to the later years 
of Trajan. In any event the momentous decree of Hadrian, destroying 
the chief reliance of men who like Polycarp and Hegesippus felt it 
necessary to fall back on "the tradition handed down from the very 
first" against the perversions of heretical teaching, would furnish the 
strongest possible incentive to such "comrades" as Papias to publish 
their stores of "traditions of the elders." The scene chosen by Justin, 
Papias' Roman contemporary, for his colloquy with Trypho in 
Ephesus, is that of a Jew driven out from Palestine by "the war." 
Just as this Jewish dispersion in 132-135 serves Justin as a natural 
setting for his (real or fictitious) Dialogue with Trypho, written c. 152, 
so it would be natural for Papias in Hierapolis of Phrygia to give out 
his Interpretations of the Lord's Oracles, largely based, as they were, on 
the accumulations of a lifetime devoted to the quest of "traditions of 
the Elders," at the moment when the sources of such tradition had 
ceased to flow. 

The later years of the period fixed by Harnack (140-160) are 
excluded in the judgment of the present writer by the indications of 
acquaintance in the writings of Justin Martyr with the work of 
Papias. This appears from Justin's statements as to the origin of the 
Gospels of Mt and Mk, and more especially from his eschatology, 
which not only reflects Papias' tradition of the Elders describing the 
marvellous fertility of Palestine and harmlessness of the wild beasts 
in messianic times, but particularizes as to the apostolic authorship of 
the Revelation of John, which Papias had ardently defended. The 
"many church fathers" whom Eusebius considers to have taken their 
eschatology from Papias, down to and including Irenaeus, must surely 
be understood to include also Justin. If so, we can hardly date this 
"only work" of Papias later than c. 145. 

But a more cogent reason for our adoption of a date not later than 
140, is the absence of any trace in any surviving extract from Papias, 
as well as the absence of any reference to Papias on the part of the 
great numbers who resorted to his book as the great repository of 
information concerning gospel origins, looking to the defense of the 
authority and authenticity of Lk. The onslaught of the Gnostic 
arch-heretic Marcion, which reverberated through all Christendom 
not more than a year or two after 140, was principally based on the 
charge that the Gospel of Lk, in the form current in the Church cath- 
olic, was interpolated and garbled in opposition to the teaching of 
Paul. Had Papias known of this charge he could hardly have avoided 
some reference to the work of our third evangelist. Such a defense of 



THE DATE OF PAPIAS 441 

the authenticity of Lk by Papias could hardly fail to be transmitted to 
us either through those who during the controversy with Marcion 
made use of Papias for other purposes, such as Irenaeus, or through 
Eusebius, who explicitly promises his readers to communicate what- 
ever he can find in early writers regarding the origin of the Gospels. 

The silence which seems to have obtained in Papias' work concern- 
ing the Gospel of Lk is much more significant than his contradiction 
in the fragment transmitted by Apollinaris of Laodicea (not Apol- 
linaris of Hierapolis, Papias' successor) of Lk's story of the fate of 
Judas. For the fragment is equally contradictory of Mt. Traditions 
of the Elders, it would seem, could be adopted by Papias even when to 
modern critics they seem irreconcilable with what Papias regarded as 
written apostolic authority. The business of harmonization between 
Gospels, or between Gospels and traditions, Papias could safely leave 
to his readers. But to completely ignore the onslaught of Marcion 
against the authenticity and authority of Lk does not seem a likely 
thing for the great champion of catholic evangelical tradition, if he 
wrote at a date shortly after the appearance of Marcion 's writings. 
A date between 135 and 145, or more specifically about 140, seems 
therefore to the present writer most conformable to the evidence at our 
command. 

It is perhaps not superfluous to add that the date once advocated 
on the basis of an alleged fragment of Papias in Philip of Side", de- 
claring that some of the subjects of Jesus' life-restoring power had 
"survived till the time of Hadrian," has no value. It would indeed 
seem to be implied that the author of the statement was himself 
writing under a later emperor; but it is now generally recognized that 
Philip of Side merely rests, as usual, on Eusebius, and that in trans- 
cribing the material of Eusebius regarding Papias and Quadratus, 
whom Eusebius reports as making statements of this kind immediately 
after his statements in regard to Papias, Philip of Sid6 has confused 
the two. For in delivering his Apology to Hadrian at the time of the 
emperor's visit to Athens (125 A.D.) Quadratus did in fact declare that 
some of these subjects of Jesus' healing power had survived "even to 
our times." These are the actual words of Quadratus given in the 
verbatim extract of Eusebius (HE, IV, 3). Eusebius' order (probably 
based on his Chronicon, in which he confesses having antedated 
Papias) is misleading; for he places the activity of Papias before that 
of Quadratus, dating the latter correctly in the reign of Hadrian. 
This also has been alleged as ground for giving Papias an early dating. 
The misplacement may well have contributed to the confusion in the 
mind of Philip of Side, but it really reflects only the lingering influence 
of Irenaeus, by whose exaggerated estimate of the "ancientness" of 
Papias Eusebius had been affected in preparing the Chronicon. In 



442 APPENDED NOTES 

the History Eusebius himself acknowledges and corrects this error, 
but apparently did not go to the length of transposing the order of 
Papias and Quadratus in his story. He was doubtless correct in 
believing both Papias and Quadratus to have flourished under Ha- 
drian (117-138), though the Apology of Quadratus (c. 125) was pub- 
lished earlier than the Exegeses of Papias. 

For reasons above outlined, we may take 140 to be the approxi- 
mately correct date for this fundamental work concerned with gospel 
origins. Papias, the author of the five-book composition entitled 
Interpretations of the Lord's Oracles, was indeed a "comrade" of 
Polycarp, who survived until 154. He wrote somewhat later than 
Quadratus, who could assure Hadrian that some of the subjects of 
Jesus' healing power had survived to within the memory of his own 
generation. Quadratus may have been born as early as Polycarp 
(69 A.D.). Papias was probably younger than either, though con- 
temporary and "comrade" of both. 



APPENDED NOTE II 

THE TERM "LOGIA" J 

A.&JIOV, diminutive of the ordinary noun \6yos ("word") is com- 
monly used by secular Greek authors to signify a brief utterance, more 
especially the sacred utterances of the Delphic or other "oracle." 
Biblical writers employ it in a similar general sense, as when in I Pt. 
4:11 sobriety of speech is commended in the exhortation "If any man 
speaketh (in the assembly) let it be as it were oracles (\6yia) of God." 
Usually Jewish writers, canonical or uncanonical, apply the term to 
the inspired utterances of the Old Testament, especially the com- 
mandments given at Sinai, as when Paul counts it a high prerogative 
of Israel that to them were committed the oracles (rd Xoyta) of God" 
(Rom. 3:2), or when Philo, using the common expression of the LXX 
for Jehovah's commandments (Dt. 33:9; Ps. 119:67, 158) calls the 
Ten Words (debarim) uttered from Sinai the "Deca-logue" (rd 5&ca 
X6yia). 

Utterances of Jesus are still, during the New Testament period, 
referred to simply as "words" or "sayings" (Xoyoi), as when Paul in 
I Thess. 4:15 refers to an utterance of Jesus (probably through the 
mouth of some church "prophet") as a "word (Xoyos) of the Lord," 
or in Acts 20:35 is reported to have reminded his hearers of the "words 
(Xoyoi) of the Lord Jesus." The pseudo-Pauline writer of the Pastoral 
Epistles, on the threshold of the second century, can refer to actual 
collections of such "health-giving words" (Xoyoi). He even makes 
them his standard of orthodoxy in I Tim. 6 :3, where they are explicitly 
defined to be "the words (Xoyoi) of our Lord Jesus Christ." Clement 
of Rome, at about the same date (c. 95) still uses the same formula as 
the author of Acts in reminding his readers of "the words (Xoyoi) of 
the Lord Jesus." Even as late -as the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus (200 
A.D.) collections of such "life-giving (?) words (Xoyoi) of Jesus the 
living Lord" were still in circulation under the older and simpler des- 
ignation. 

The change to a more reverential designation comes soon after the 
turn of the century, coincidently with the use of written gospels and 
the disposition to treat the teaching of Jesus as a kind of "new Law" 
overriding the written commandment of Moses. His utterances are 
now classed with Old Testament Scripture as "oracles" (Xoyia). 
The Epistle of James, Pseudo-Barnabas and the Gospel of Mt are 
salient examples of this neo-legalism, which inevitably tends to place 

443 



444 APPENDED NOTES 

the utterances of Jesus alongside of the sacred "oracles" (X6yta) of 
the Old Testament, though of course on a higher plane. A typical 
instance is found in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, 18, where the Jew 
is expressly said to have read the teaching of Jesus. In the previous 
chapter (17) Justin had coupled what he describes as "oracles (X6yia) 
of our Saviour" with some from the Old Testament. The passages in 
question are the four "Woes" of Is. 5:18, 20, to which Justin attaches 
Jesus' denunciation of the priests in Mt. 21:13, and his Woes against 
the Scribes and Pharisees, in a memoriter abstract of Mt. 23 blended 
with Lk. 11. Trypho having admitted that he had "read the doctrines 
taught" by Jesus, Justin thinks it permissible on his part to add these 
"oracles" (Xoyia) of the Saviour to those of "the prophets." 

We are thus brought to the precise period of Papias, concerning the 
meaning of whose use of the term ra Xoyia dispute has recently been 
raised in high quarters. In our text it has been pointed out that Papias 
stands in the direct line of succession from Polycarp to Irenaeus. 
He is battling against those whom Polycarp had denounced as "per- 
verting the oracles of the Lord (rd Xoyia TOV Kvpiov) to their own 
lusts " and whom Irenaeus, depending on both Polycarp and Papias, 
arraigns as "bad interpreters of things well said." Polycarp uses the 
expression in ad Phil. vii. Irenaeus uses both Xoyia /cupia/cd (exactly 
as in Papias' title) and the equivalent Xoyia TOV Kvpiov in Haer. I, i. 
and I, viii. 1. It is difficult to imagine that the author of a book having 
the title "Interpretation (or 'Interpretations') of the Oracles of 
the Lord" [Aoyiow Kupta/ccoi/ e^y Screws (al. = euv) k] at the period 
of Justin, and with the objects in view represented by Polycarp and 
Irenaeus, could have meant by it anything else than what Polycarp, 
Justin, and Irenaeus, mean by the same term. 

Two misapprehensions, however, require to be removed, one a 
comparatively slight misinterpretation but vastly misleading in its 
results, the other going widely astray from the meaning inferable from 
the parallels just cited, but as yet affecting but very few critics. 

1. The first of these two misunderstandings is that which takes 
TO. Xoyia in Papias' statement that "Matthew made a compend of 
the oracles" (o-wera^aro l ra Xoyia) to be the title of a book instead of 
the description of a book by its contents. This misunderstanding was 
the fundamental and prolific error of Schleiermacher, highly seductive 
to critics who denied the apostolic origin of our first Gospel, because 
it permitted the supposition that either Papias himself, or at least 
some authority such as the Elder John, on whom Papias might be 
conjectured to be resting, was referring to some other composition 



1 This reading is to be preferred to the synonymous variant ff 
because of its agreement with the term employed by Papias in referring to Peter's 
part. "Peter had no design of making a compend (eri/yra^) of the logia." 



THE TERM "LOGIA" 445 

than the canonical work. If so there would be at least a hint of 
knowledge from remotest antiquity of that "Second Source" which 
modern critics are certainly able to trace behind our Gospels of Mt 
and Lk. 

Schleiermacher's theory was tempting, but untenable. It was 
refuted by Hilgenfeld as early as the middle of the nineteenth century 
from the point of view of the radical Tubingen critics, and still more 
thoroughly by the extreme conservative Zahn in his Introduction 
(1897, Engl. 1909, section 54). In all countries save those of English 
speech the foremost critics have shown its fallacious nature. The 
history of the delusion has been briefly traced by the present writer 
in an article entitled "Why 'according to Matthew'?" (Expositor, 
1920), and need not be here rehearsed. The error begins with Light- 
foot's rejection of Hilgenf eld's correct interpretation of Papias' 
language, and ends with the habitual reference by English and Ameri- 
can scholars and critics to "the Logia spoken of by Papias," where 
"the Logia" is assumed to be the title (or at least the description) 
of a book not to be identified with our first canonical Gospel. 

The correct interpretation of Papias' language, an interpretation 
to which Lightfoot objected, is stated by Lightfoot himself as follows: 

Hilgenfeld, while applying it (the expression orweTalaro TO, \oyia) to 
our first Gospel, explains it on grounds which at all events are perfectly 
tenable. He supposes that Papias mentions only the sayings of Christ, 
not because St. Matthew recorded nothing else, but because he himself 
was concerned only with these, and St. Matthew's Gospel, as distinguished 
from St. Mark's, was the greatest storehouse of materials for his purpose. 

It is certain that Papias was actually referring to our own Gospel 
of Mt, partly because in 140 A.D., or even earlier, no other "compend 
of the AoTta" could possibly be considered by any orthodox church 
writer as a standard reference book for the purpose described, partly 
because every one of the great number of ancient writers who based 
their statements concerning gospel origins on Papias understood it 
in this sense. This reference of Papias to our own Mt is so obvious 
and undeniable that those who continued for a time to cling to 
Schleiermacher's theory usually sought to avoid the difficulty by 
maintaining (without any basis whatever in the text) that the tradi- 
tion was only quoted by Papias from "the Elder John" or some other 
remote witness, and that while Papias himself must be admitted to 
have our own Gospel of Mt in view, his predecessor meant some other 
writing, either a Proto-Mt, or some other source no longer extant. 

The truth is that while Papias undoubtedly has our own Gospel of 
Mt in view, and no other document whatever, he is not referring to it 
by title, which then as now was simply 'Eva.yyk\iov Kara Marflcuov, 



446 APPENDED NOTES 

but describing it by that salient feature which chiefly concerned him- 
self and his readers. It really was the compend (crvvra^s) of the Lord 's 
oracles (rd Kvpiana Xoyia) par eminence. 

The task of fighting with supposititious writings, no longer extant, 
but variable according to the inventor's requirements, is a kind of 
shadow-boxing incapable of yielding worth-while results. Never- 
theless it should be apparent that testimony to a writing from the 
hand of an Apostle, whatever the nature of the Xoyio, supposed to 
have been compiled by him, could not easily disappear in the age of 
Clement of Rome and Ignatius, to whom words of Apostles have 
almost superhuman authority. The only element of the supposed 
tradition which gives it special value in the critic's eyes is its mention 
of the Apostle Matthew. Yet it is precisely this feature which we 
are compelled to renounce in attempting to go behind the statement 
of Papias. So difficult is it to imagine the transfer of the apostolic 
name to a later composition, followed by the entire disappearance of 
the original from the memory of the Church, that Godet, a firm 
believer in the existence of a writing called "The Logia," prefers, as 
we have noted, to assume that its true author was "not an Apostle, 
but the apostolate" (Introd. to N. T., Pt. II, Four Gospels, Engl. 
1899, p. 218.). How Luke, acquainted as he was with this apos- 
tolic document, could have so completely ignored its pre-eminent 
authority in his famous preface (Lk 1 :1 f .) remains unexplained. 

The truth is no other writing than the Old Testament could possibly 
circulate as rd Aoyta among churches accustomed to speak of the 
divine utterances of the Law and the Prophets as "the Xoyia," or 
"the Xoyia of God." Even to describe any writing other than this as 
"The Logia" would necessitate some distinguishing adjective to make 
known what particular sacred oracles were meant. In the title of 
Papias ' Interpretations this is made clear by the adjective " dominical " 
(KvpiaKa). These "health-giving words" of the Lord Jesus are the 
"commandments" (ezm>X<u), greater than those of Moses, which 
had been "delivered by the Lord to the faith." These are TO. Ki/pia/cd 
Xoyia. Irenaeus meets the same necessity, without wholly removing 
ambiguity, by describing them as "oracles (Xoyia) of the Lord" 
(TOV KvpLov). Justin explicitly distinguishes them from utterances 
of the Old Testament prophets, by calling them "oracles of our 
Saviour." 

It is therefore certain that Papias did not make his statement that 
"Matthew compiled (or composed) the logia" without some indica- 
tion from the context what logia were meant. The briefer form, with- 
out the distinguishing adjective Kupia/cd, was proper because Papias 
had made his meaning clear in no less than three different ways: 
(1) by his reference to the "commandments given by the Lord to the 



THE TERM "LOGIA" 447 

faith," whose true sense could be determined by the tradition of 
"disciples of the Lord" specified by name; (2) by his explanation of 
the defective order of Mk on the ground that Mark had not himself 
been a follower of "the Lord," and that Peter, whose discourses 
Mark had later been privileged to hear, "had no design of making a 
compend (ffbvra&s) of the Lord's oracks," (or "sayings"); (3) by the 
very title of his book, " Interpretation (s) of the Lord's oracles." 
As Schmiedel points out in his well known article "Gospels" in 
EB, vol. II, col. 1811 the use of the adjective ypta6s as in Irenaeus 
I, viii. 1 rather than the genitive as in Polycarp (rov Kvpiou), or 
Justin's "oracles of our Saviour," was dictated by the necessity of 
avoiding ambiguity and prolixity. 

Papias calls them Kvpiaica rather than Ktyuov, for obvious reasons. 
KV/HOS is distinguished from 6 Kv/otos, in that the former often means 
" God," whilst the latter means " the Lord (Jesus)." AoyiW Kv/uov 
(e^y^cr<i)s) might have meant " Oracles of God," that is, the Old Testa- 
ment (as in Irenaeus, Pref. I). TGv AoyiW rov Kvplov e would be clear, 
but lengthy. KV/JIOKOS, being applied to the Lord's day as distinct from 
the Sabbath, was exactly the fit word to distinguish the Law of Christ 
from the oracles of the Law of Moses. 

We must also be on our guard against a further misinterpretation 
for which it must be admitted Lightfoot himself is directly responsible. 
Against the perfectly correct statement of Hilgenfeld that Papias by 
his expression TO, Xoyia referred not to any book or narrative whatever, 
but simply to "the sayings of Christ," whose meaning was the subject 
of discussion in Papias' time and of his own book in particular, 
Lightfoot proposed to take the expression as equivalent to "the 
Gospel," offering for this no better evidence than the application of 
the term to the entire four-gospel canon by a sixth-century (!) writer. 

Such a sense for the term ra \6yia is without example for centu- 
ries after Papias. On the other hand we have already adduced 
repeated instances from his own time of the application of the 
term Xoyta to divine utterances in general, and (where the context 
makes clear whose divine utterances are meant) the cherished sayings 
of Jesus. The expression "the oracles" in what Papias says regarding 
the work of Matthew is to be understood by what he says regarding 
the different service of Peter. The unsystematic collection of stories, 
some of them "doings," some "sayings," recorded by Mark in his 
Memorabilia (aTronvrjuovevnarcC), owes its defects (to Papias' mind) to 
this fact among others, that Peter had no such design as that whose 
carrying out is ascribed to Matthew. Peter did not aim to provide an 
ordered compilation of "the sacred oracles." Matthew did so. The 
sacred oracles (or "sayings") are open to no possible doubt in the 



448 APPENDED NOTES 

reference to Peter's preaching. The use of the article alone would 
prove that they are the same spoken of in the title of the book as 
"dominical" (Kupta/ca) and referred to as "commandments delivered 
by the Lord" in an adjacent passage. They are what Justin con- 
temporarily refers to in distinction from the inspired utterances of 
Old Testament prophets as "the oracles of our Saviour." The ex- 
pression "the oracles" is not equivalent to "the Gospel of Mt," 
for neither Papias nor Justin restrict their citations to this single 
Gospel. Both use Mt as the pre-eminent "compend" (avvra.^) 
of them, but neither they, nor any contemporaries, Jewish or Chris- 
tian, employ TO. \6yia as the title of a book. Papias, then, is certainly 
misinterpreted when it is maintained, whether by Lightfoot or his 
many distinguished followers, that in speaking of the literary work of 
the apostle Matthew he has anything else in mind than our own 
canonical first Gospel, described from the then most valued factor of 
its contents. It was indeed "the greatest storehouse of materials for 
his purpose." To Papias, then, as to us, the First Gospel was "The 
Gospel according to Matthew," its main contents, compiled (o-ui>erae) 
by the Apostle, were rd Xoyia. 

2. Scholars fully aware of the distinction between X6yoi and \6yia 
have recently propounded a new theory giving to the latter term its 
proper sense of "divine" or "inspired oracle, " to Jews and Christians, 
more especially utterances of Moses and the prophets. The theory is 
most fully stated and most learnedly advocated by Dr. Rendel Harris 
in two successive volumes entitled Testimonies, Vol. I bearing date 
1916, Vol. II, 1920. The effort is to trace back to the earliest times the 
use of collections of messianic proof-texts from the Old Testament 
such as Justin Martyr shows some evidence of employing, and later 
writers such as Cyprian actually published under the title Testimonia. 
Incidentally Dr. Harris and his coadjutor Dr. Vacher Burch endeavor 
to show that the expression TO. Xoyta employed by Papias has refer- 
ence to such a collection of messianic proof-texts against the Jews, 
and not at all, as readers of Papias for some eighteen centuries have 
supposed, to the divinely inspired utterances of Jesus. 

The objection to such a theory is not what its advocates assume. 
Dr. Harris may prove to his own satisfaction and that of his many 
interested readers, that such a collection of "testimonies" was used 
by Paul in Romans and Galatians (Chh. II and III), in Ephesians 
and Hebrews (Chh. IV and V), in the Gospels and Acts (Chh. VI- 
IX) and in Apocryphal writings (Ch. X). The proof will have no 
bearing on the point here at issue. It would still have none were he 
even to prove that Papias himself was acquainted with such collec- 
tions of proof-texts and used them. To have any present bearing 
evidence must be adduced that in the particular passages in which 



THE TERM "LOGIA" 449 

Papias uses the definite article rd, whose meaning must be determined 
by the context, Papias was speaking of such a collection, and not of 
utterances of Jesus, as all his readers have invariably supposed from 
Irenaeus down to the appearance of the anonymous essay The Oracles 
ascribed to Matthew by Papias of Hiempolis (1894). 

Much aid and comfort is drawn by Dr. Bindley and some other of 
Dr. Harris' allies from the misuse we have already spoken of, made 
by English scholars in general and by several on the Continent of 
Europe, of the passage of Papias in which he speaks of Matthew's 
compilation of rd Xoyta as though the term could be used as the title 
of a book, and applied either to the Gospel according to Mt, or some 
kind or other of proto-Mt. It cannot be so used. Only the context 
can determine what particular "divine oracles" were meant. The 
issue concerns the definite article rd. To what does it refer? The 
men who held Papias' work in their hands, not moderns who have 
only fragments, are those whose opinion is of value on this point. 
Needless to say, on this issue it is absolutely unanimous against 
Dr. Harris, Professor Burkitt, Dr. E. S. Selwyn, Dr. Solomon Reinach, 
and their associates. 

All without exception from the second century down to the fifteenth 
who could know the actual work of Papias in unmutilated form under- 
stood him, when speaking of the compilation ((rvvTa&s) of "the" 
logia composed by Matthew in Hebrew, to mean our present Gospel 
according to Mt in its (assumed) original Semitic dress. No witnesses 
whatever, save moderns restricted to a few fragments quoted by 
Eusebius, witnesses anxious to unearth evidence for a critical dis- 
covery of their own of the Q source or some other unknown document, 
have ever found in Papias' declaration any other application. 

Curiously it is in Dr. Harris' own Testimonies (Pt. II, pp. 5 ff.) 
that we find one of the best possible summaries of the various direc- 
tions in which "investigators have been led astray by their desire to 
connect Papias with the traditional Hebrew original of the Gospel 
of Matthew," or (let us add, in order to include Dr. Harris' own 
theory) some other conjectural document. Dr. Harris lists under a, b, c, 
and d the "erroneous" types of "unverifiable hypotheses" to which 
this desire has led. We will transcribe his list with brief comment 
attached to each. 

(a) Papias' Oracles are the Gospel of Matthew, the Hebrew orig- 
inal of our extant Gospel. 

False, because Papias is not giving the title of a book, but describ- 
ing it by its salient contents. 

(b) Papias' Oracles are a collection of Aramaic Sayings of Jesus 
underlying our existing Gospel. 

False, because not one of Papias' contemporaries betrays a suspi- 



450 APPENDED NOTES 

cion of the existence of such a collection, while all who actually used 
his book understood him to be referring to our Mt, the standard 
thesaurus of Kupta/cA X6yia of his time. 

(c) Papias' Oracles are the source (Q) which underlies the common 
sections of Mt and Lk. 

False, for reasons stated under (b). 

(d) Papias' Oracles are a collection of fulfilments of prophecy, such 
as we find in the Gospel of Mt. 

False, for reasons equally applicable to Dr. Harris' own theory, 
from which it is almost indistinguishable. The reasons are so well 
stated by Canon Stanton in the passage excerpted by Dr. Harris 
with attempted refutation on pp. 9 f., that repetition should be need- 
less. But see below. 

All of these misinterpretations of "investigators led astray by 
their desire to connect Papias with " some kind of precanonical docu- 
ment rightly or wrongly presumed to have existed, including Dr. 
Harris' own "unverifiable hypothesis," exhibit one fault in com- 
mon. They emphasize it by the use of capital letters and italic type 
for the word Oracles. This itself is a begging of the whole question, 
for as Canon Stanton well says in his answer to Burkitt above referred 
to, 

The use of TO. \6yta as the description of a particular set of extracts 
from the Old Testament, when the whole Old Testament was commonly 
so called, would be too confusing to be thought of. 

Dr. Harris' answer to this is enlightening though it should be accom- 
panied by the explanation which we insert in parentheses: 

Papias does not use the article systematically before Xoyia. He calls 
his work an " Exposition of Dominical oracles " (Greek book titles avoid 
the use of the article where possible). When he says, " Matthew wrote 
The Oracles," the article is demonstrative of the particular Oracles on 
which Papias comments. 



But the clause avv^Ta^aro (al. avveypfal/aTo) TO. X6yia does not 
mean "wrote the Oracles." It means "compiled the oracles." The 
article TO,, which Papias does not use indiscriminately before X6yta 
but only as required by the practice of good writers, and as elucidated 
by the context, tells exactly what "particular oracles" he was talking 
about, viz., the "dominical" (Kupta/cd) oracles whose meaning was 
in dispute. Dr. Harris is able to believe, in spite of the context, and 
in spite of the unanimous understanding of antiquity, that these 
"particular oracles" were certain Old Testament extracts collected 
in a Testimony Book! He holds up to ridicule as a "shot a little wide 
of the target" the following statement of the case by one distinguished 



THE TERM "LOGIA" 451 

above almost every Gospel critic of our time on account of the so- 
briety and careful precision of his statements, Sir John Hawkins in 
Oxford Studies on the Synoptic Problem, p. 105. 

One of these two sources (for the oracles to be expounded by Papias), 
i.e., St. Mark's Gospel, contains, as Papias says, both sayings and doings 
of Christ, while the other, which he ascribes to St. Matthew, has as its 
main object sacred utterances (ra \6yia), which (with the article and in this 
connection) can only mean those of the Lord. . . . Does he mean, and 
did he expect his readers to understand, that St. Matthew's object in 
writing was narrower than St. Mark's, and that he designed only (see 
above " main object ") to record sayings and discourses of Christ? Prob- 
ably he did. 

It should be admitted that even the guarded statement of Sir John 
Hawkins requires a shade of modification as indicated by the words 
we have added in parentheses. The matter is put too strongly when 
it is maintained that ra \6yia in general " can only mean those of the 
Lord." But only an opponent disposed to take the writer's meaning 
in an unintended sense could imagine it to be other than as defined by 
our parenthetic supplement. Again the word "only," spoken of 
Matthew's design, is too strong unless understood in the light of the 
preceding statement concerning the "main" object of Matthew. If 
applied to the Gospel of Mt as compared with the Gospel of Mk 
nothing could be more just or accurate than to say, as Papias does 
say, that its author's main design was to make a compilation 
of the oracles of the Lord. 



APPENDED NOTE III 
THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 

SINCE the publication in 1921 of Harnack's great work on Marcion: 
Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott, it has become doubly apparent 
that the appearance of Marcion's Antitheses at Rome c. 140 must be 
the starting point for all reliable accounts of the formation of the 
New Testament canon. The Church by this formidable attack upon 
the authenticity of its apostolic documents was placed upon the de- 
fensive and compelled to offset Marcion's New Testament, consisting 
of "the" Gospel (a garbled and mutilated Lk) and "the Apostle" 
(ten Epistles of Paul in similarly "corrected" form), with a "catholic" 
New Testament of its own. For this "canon" of approved books 
prologues were drawn up in imitation of the prologues with which 
Marcion had prefaced his own edition of the Scriptures (that is, his 
"Gospel" and "Apostle"), and these "Anti-Marcionite" Prologues 
to the Gospels have recently been brought into fuller light by the 
researches of D. Donatien DeBruyne, who collates their text from 
Mss of the Vulgate which contain survivals from the Old Latin and 
discusses their origin in an able and instructive article in Revue 
Benedictine XL, 3 (July, 1928) entitled "Les plus anciens prologues 
latins des evangiles." 

Unfortunately the Anti-Marcionite prologue to Mt has not sur- 
vived, but the remaining three prologues have very great importance 
for the entire problem of the formation of the four-Gospel canon. In 
particular that prefixed to the fourth Gospel has long been a subject 
of keen debate among critics, including two articles by the present 
writer. My former conclusions must therefore now be either justified 
or withdrawn, inasmuch as they are vigorously assailed by DeBruyne. 
The articles referred to were published in JBL, XXXII, 3 (Sept., 1913) 
under the title "The Latin Prologues of John" and in JThS, XXIII, 
90 (Jan., 1922) under the title "Marcion, Papias and 'The Elders'." 
These are hereinafter designated Art. I and Art. II respectively. 

Thanks to DeBruyne the long debated prologue to Jn can now be 
printed in a reliable text based on seven previously unknown Mss. 
It appears with apparatus criticus on p. 198 f . of his article as follows. 

Euangelium iohannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab iohanne 
adhuc in corpore constitute, sicut papias nomine hierapolitanus, discipulus 
iohannis carus, in exotericis, id est in extremis quinque libris retulit. De- 

452 



THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 453 

scripsit vero evangelium dictante iohanne recte. Verum Marcion hereticus, 
cum ab eo fuisset inprobatus eo quod contraria sentiebat, abiectus est 
ab iohanne. Is vero scripta uel epistulas ad eum pertulerat a fratribus 
qui in ponto fuerunt. 

This text coincides with that of my Art. I in all particulars save 
punctuation. Agreeing with earlier critics as to the diverse origin of 
the latter half I punctuated with a full stop after dictante iohanne. 
Thus divided the prologue may be rendered: 

A. The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John 
while yet in the body, as one Papias of Hierapolis, a dear disciple of John, 
has reported in his exoteric, that is, his last five books. Indeed he took 
down the Gospel in writing while John dictated. 

B. Marcion the heretic, however, who had been disapproved by him (?) 
because of his adverse opinions, was (justly?) cast out by John. Indeed 
he (Marcion) had brought to him (John) writings, or letters, from the 
brethren who dwelt in Pontus. 

Paragraph A must be first considered. 

In his able volume Die Enstehung des Johannesevangeliums (1912), 
Prof. Carl Clemen could still maintain (p. 375) that the statement of 
this unknown author, whose language proves him to be translating 
from an earlier Greek document, at least in Paragraph A, should be 
accepted as reporting in substance the actual fact. 

Not, of course, that the alleged testimony of Papias could be ad- 
mitted in the form reported. Lightfoot in his Essays against the 
author of Supernatural Religion (Contemporary Review, 1875, XXVI, 
854) had conceded this to be incredible, proposing instead 

that Papias, having reported some saying of St. John on the authority 
of the elders, went on somewhat as follows: " and this accords with what 
we find in his own Gospel, which he gave to the churches when he was 
still in the body "... 

Thus altered to a mere obiter dictum Lightfoot believed the testimony 
might have escaped the notice of the contestants over the question 
of the authenticity of Jn, who ransacked the pages of Papias for evi- 
dence on this question, pro and contra, from 180 to 300 A.D. Indeed 
we should add to this third-century inspection the careful search of 
Eusebius, who, early in the fourth century, again scrutinized Papias' 
five-chaptered work for evidence on the origin of the Gospels. In 
view of this repeated scrutiny, affording no trace of the alleged testi- 
mony we need not be surprised to find even Lightfoot disinclined to 
attach importance to the alleged fragment, even in the form conjec- 
turally restored by himself. Clemen was disposed to give it more 
weight. Others still remain dubious. 



454 APPENDED NOTES 

In Art. I I argued that those critics are right (Clemen included) 
who maintain that the Prologue (sustained by some later evidence) 
actually does reflect in distorted form a statement made by Papias 
in the fifth and last book of his Exegeses (corrupted in the Prologue 
to in exotericis, id est in extremis quinque libris) but with different 
application. For a part of the blundering in Paragraph A, for ex- 
ample the attempted correction of exotericis by adding id est, etc., the 
translator may reasonably be held responsible. But the Greek writer 
himself can have had no direct acquaintance with the work cited. 
He draws from someone (Hippolytus?) who had made reference to 
"the fifth book of the Exegeses of Papias." In my article it was shown 
that the statement could be accepted if the testimony cited had ap- 
plied originally to the Revelation, not the Gospel of Jn. For Papias' 
fifth book dealt with eschatology, as the citations of Irenaeus prove. 
The Prologue-writer could easily take Papias' testimony to the Reve- 
lation as applicable to the Gospel also. 

The reasons given for this explanation were chiefly the following: 

(1) We are credibly informed by Andreas of Caesarea, who else- 
where professes to quote "word for word" from Papias' book, that 
"Papias," as well as "Irenaeus, Methodius and Hippolytus" main- 
tained the "credibility" (TO di67ri<rToi>) of Revelation. Corrobora- 
tion is available. Justin Martyr, who does not actually quote Papias 
but probably rests on his authority, asserts (Dial. Ixxxi) that 

John, one of the apostles of Christ, prophesied by a revelation that 
was made to him that those who believe in our Christ would dwell a thou- 
sand years in Jerusalem. 

In short Justin agrees with his Phrygian contemporary in observing 
a silence regarding the authorship of the anonymous Gospel and 
Epistles and a relative neglect of their testimony which are hard to 
reconcile with the idea that their authenticity had as yet come into 
dispute, at the same time that he ardently champions the claim of 
the Revelation to have been "revealed to John in the Spirit." 

Again this "revelation in the Spirit " was accompanied by the direc- 
tion (Rev. 1:11) to "write the vision in a book" and "give it to the 
churches." This, clearly, is the statement which Papias thought 
"worthy of belief"; for as yet dispute had not arisen over the apos- 
tolic authorship of the anonymous Gospel and Epistles, whereas the 
question whether the claim of Rev. 1:9-11 was or was not "worthy 
of belief" formed the very heart of the prolonged chiliastic contro- 
versy. A testimony of Papias to the Revelation of John is a well- 
attested fact; a testimony from him to the Gospel is admittedly in- 
credible, at least in the form alleged. 

(2) The phraseology quoted by the Prologue, manifestatum (!) 



THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 455 

et datum ecclesiis, applies to a "revelation" rather than a gospel. 
Moreover it agrees exactly with that of Rev. 1:9-11 "I John . . . 
was in the Spirit, and I heard a great voice saying, what thou seest 
write in a book and send it to the seven churches." The same phraseology 
reappears, as we have seen, in Justin ("prophesied by a revelation 
made to him"), it also appears in a subscription to Revelation which 
may be rendered from the Ethiopic: 

Here is ended the vision of John, the Apocalypse, Amen. That is to 
say, that vision which he saw in his lifetime; and it was written by the 
blessed John the evangelist of God. 1 

The Prologue merely reiterates this. When it also states that the 
command received by John "in the Spirit" was carried out "while he 
was yet in the body" it makes no further inference than every reader 
of Rev. 1:9-11 necessarily makes and was intended to make. The 
accepted date for the publication of the Apocalypse ("in the end of 
the reign of Domitian") made the statement necessary because 
publication at the age of ninety and upwards was not more common 
in antiquity than today. 

(3) In the age of Tertullian and Hippolytus the Instrumentum- 
Johanneum was a unit. For the Church at large all five of the dis- 
puted books stood or fell together. Hence if testimony from Papias 
were lacking in behalf of the Gospel (and we have seen that none is 
likely to have been available) his testimony to the Revelation could 
be made to serve as well. If a Hippolytus in defending the authen- 
ticity of the Revelation against Gaius quoted Melito, Irenaeus, or 
Methodius to this effect; or if in'his treatise Against Marcion he spoke 
of Papias as having borne this witness to the "credibility" of Rev. 
1:9-11, the statement would easily be construed by the writer of any 
contemporary Prologue to be applicable to the whole Instrumentum 
Johanneum. 

Fortunately or unfortunately Paragraph A of the Prologue giving 
the testimony of Papias does not stand alone. The supplement in 
Paragraph B stands by general consent on a lower level of credibility. 
Westcott and Lightfoot ascribed to it a separate origin. Zahn dis- 
misses it as "wholly fabulous." But to locate and date Paragraph A 
we must also consider Paragraph B, considering first the point of 
division. 

DeBruyne, to whose able article we must presently give attention, 
declares that to punctuate by a full stop after dictante iohanne, joining 
recte to Paragraph B, is contrary to "the Mss., grammar, and good 

1 Tischendorf renders in a manner to make the reference to 1:9-11 still more 
unmistakable: Quod est dictum (Rev. 1:9-11): quam vidit in vita sua visio, et 
scripta fuit, etc. 



456 APPENDED NOTES 

sense." The apparatus criticus on p. 199 shows only that a group of 
four Mss. among the ten which give the text (a group which includes 
the oldest and best of all) omits recte entirely, ending Paragraph A: 
qui hoc evangeliwn, iohanne sibi dictante, conscripsit. Mss. TXEY 
begin a new paragraph with Verum Marcion, for in the form verum 
this conjunction always stands first in the sentence. Before turning 
to the consideration of Paragraph B we note, then, that so far as 
Paragraph A is concerned punctuation with a full stop after descripsit 
dictante iohanne (or diet. ioh. conscripsit) is certainly not contrary 
to the Mss. It is also not contrary to good sense. Quite the opposite. 
DeBryune (p. 200 f .) offers among other convincing proofs of common 
authorship for the three surviving prologues their limitation to a 
common outline. This mentions (1) the writer's name and identity; 
(2) the place of writing; (3) the transmission; that is, how the record 
was obtained, the three facts most essential to authentication. Only 
the prologue to Lk-Acts, the Gospel writing particularly in dispute, 
is considerably expanded to refute the claims of Marcion. The clos- 
ing phrase of all three prologues is noticeably similar. For Mk we 
have: Post excessionem ipsius Petri descripsit idem hoc in partibus 
Italiae evangelium. For Lk: In Achaiae partibus hoc descripsit evan- 
gelium. Punctuating as we have proposed Paragraph A of the pro- 
logue to Jn ends (the churches of Asia having been previously referred 
to) : Descripsit vero evangelium dictante Iohanne. 

Postponing momentarily the vexed question of the adverb recte 
and its proper place in the context we turn, then, to Paragraph B 
and its curious statements about Marcion and John. Its anachronis- 
tic report of the Apostle John excommunicating the heretic no doubt 
appears grotesque enough. But to reject the paragraph as "wholly 
fabulous" is not the right procedure, because the statement is trace- 
able to certain utterances of Tertullian adduced in Arts. I and II. 
These not only explain the statement but prove thus that the date of 
Paragraph B is not earlier than 208 A.D., when Tertullian wrote his 
five books "Against Marcion" (Adv. Marcionem I, i. 15). To prove 
this against DeBruyne, who peremptorily denies this dependence 
(p. 210, "centre Bacon je rejette toute dependance vis a vis de Tertul- 
lien") it will be necessary to repeat some of the extracts given on 
p. 209 of Art. I, and thereafter to consider the testimony of the Mss. 

1. To elucidate the clause of Paragraph B Is vero scripta vel epistolas 
ad eum pertulerat afratribus qui in Pontofuerunt the following passage 
was cited from Tertullian Adv. Marc. IV, iii f.: 

Sed enim Marcion nodus epistulam (sc. Gal. marc -) . . . connititur ad 
destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum 
nomine (i.e., Jn and Mt) eduntur . . . et pecuniam in primo calore fidei, 



THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 457 

catholicae ecclesiae contulit, projectam mox cum ipso, postquam in haeresim 
. . . descivit. Quid mine si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos 
fidem eius adversus epistulam ipsius? Quid si nee epistulam agnoverint. 

Like modern interpreters the Prologue-writer seems a little in 
doubt as to the nature of Marcion's "letter," which he refers to as 
scripta vel epistulas. His decision coincides with DeBruyne's that it 
was a letter of commendation from the brethren in Marcion's native 
province of Pontus. Other interpreters of high standing think Ter- 
tullian is referring to an epistle falsely ascribed to Marcion himself. 
As regards the question of dependence the uncertainty indicated by 
the vel epistulas is of some importance. As regards the "casting out" 
(projectam mox cum ipso) it can of course be still maintained with 
Harnack and DeBruyne, in spite of certain obvious difficulties, that 
the Prologue-writer was not dependent upon Tertullian, but had the 
story by separate tradition. 

2. We turn then to the curious statement that Marcion was cast 
out by John [abiectus est db iohanne (!)]. As to this and the equally 
curious mildness of the alleged offense (eo quod contraria sentiebat) 
two questions were raised in my articles (II, p. 210) : (a) How comes 
the discomfiture of Marcion to be attributed to John? (&) Why is 
his heresy referred to in terms which would almost justify a charge 
of bigotry and intolerance on the part of the Apostle? 

Both questions can at once be answered by dependence on Tertul- 
lian, and can be answered (so far as the present writer can see) in no 
other way. 

(a) It is Tertullian who in several passages makes witty and telling 
reference to the fact that the Apostle John had anticipated the rejec- 
tion of his own writings by Marcion in the passage from II Jn 7 
(paralleled by I Jn 4:2 f.), where the docetic heresy proclaimed by the 
disturber of the faith is emphatically denounced as follows: 

Many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess 
not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the 
antichrist. 

The application of the passage to Marcion is not original with Tertul- 
lian. Indeed Irenaeus relates it as applied by Polycarp to Marcion 
face to face in Rome (Haer. Ill, iii. 4) ; Eusebius (HE III, xxviii. 6) 
tells it of John and Cerinthus. We may infer from HE, III, xxxix. 
16 (Papias "uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John") that 
Papias himself employed it against docetists. Jerome (Hieron. Prol. to 
Mt) says explicitly that "John in his Epistle denounces as antichrists 
those who "deny that Christ is come in the flesh" applying it, how- 
ever, to "Cerinthus and Ebion," supposed contemporaries of John. 
Whoever be first credited with the application Tertullian repeatedly 



458 APPENDED NOTES 

adverts to the condemnation of Marcion by John (in this prophetic 
sense). The passages cited in Arts. I and II were Adv. Marc. Ill, viii; 
Praescr. xxxiii, and Adv. Praxeam, xxviii. For the curious inversion of 
the parts, making John cast out Marcion in advance of Marcion 's 
rejection of "John" we must therefore hold Tertullian primarily 
responsible. Tertullian, of course, is speaking of John's prophetic 
"confounding" (confudisef) and "casting out" (projectam) of the 
heretic who in after years would "labor to destroy the standing of 
those Gospels which appear under the actual names of Apostles." 
The Prologue-writer changes prophecy into fact. 

(&) The second question was: Why is the offence charged described 
so mildly as eo quod contraria sentiebatf This also was answered by 
reference to Tertullian, who voices the habitual (and just) complaint 
of the many writers "Against Marcion" that he had arbitrarily 
removed from his text whatever was "contrary to his own opinion." 
This reproach is addressed to Marcion by Tertullian as follows in 
De Game Christi, iii: 

If them hadst not rejected the Scriptures which were contrary to thine 
own opinion (opinionae tuae resistentes) the Gospel of John would have 
confounded thee. 

In Adv. Marc. IV, vi, he writes: 

He (Marcion) has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion, 
whilst everything that agreed with his own opinion he has retained (con- 
traria quaeque sententiae suae erasit . . . competentia autem sententiae 
suae reservavit). 

These proofs of dependence by the Prologue-writer on Tertullian 
appear to have escaped the attention of Harnack, who in his Neue 
Studien zu Marcion (1923) does not include among the reviews of his 
important volume any reference to Art. II. Instead he resorts to the 
critical knife to rid himself of the inconvenient words db iohanne in 
Paragraph B in a note on p. 30 as follows: 

It now seems to me very probable that in the Prologue to Jn (on this 
see DeBruyne, Rev. Bened. 1921, Oct. p. 14) the a Iohanne at the close 
should be stricken out as an interpolation (cf. Jer. De Vir. III. 7 with 
Ter. De Bapt. 17). In that case it is Papias who rejected Marcion as a 
heretic after the latter had brought him letters (of commendation) from 
the brethren in Pontus. This statement is not incredible. 

This conjecture is adopted and defended by DeBruyne, as we shall see; 
not, however, in ignorance of my attempt to show the true origin of 
the strange assertion, but with the peremptory denial already quoted 
of any "dependence on Tertullian" whatever. 
DeBruyne 's article of 1928 has already been described. It was 



THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 459 

properly received with unstinted praise in Harnack's extended review 
in Sitzungsberichte der Preuss. Akad. of Oct., 1928; for it has high 
scientific value quite apart from the fact that it concludes with 
the explicit avowal of an intention to support the views of Harnack re- 
garding New Testament origins, and especially cites with approval the 
passage just quoted from Neue Studien. If, therefore, the idea of a 
casting out of Marcion by "the elders " at Ephesus previous to the well 
known occurrence at Rome, is a misleading and completely unfounded 
theory (as the present writer maintains) it will be necessary, with 
all due acknowledgment of error, to undertake an answer. 

For two reasons an answer to DeBruyne can only be undertaken in 
a spirit of genuine humility. First, because he is an experienced 
student of Church History, who in this most recent contribution has 
proved his energy and industry by unearthing a long list of Latin Mss. 
inaccessible to scholars in partibus infidelium, and by collating from 
them the text of a group, very early in date, of Anti-Marcionite 
Prologues to the four Gospels. He gives up as irremediably lost the 
Prologue to Mt, though one might hazard the hope that some traces 
may still be found to survive in the Ecclesiastica Historia and other 
material cited in Art. I. The Prologue to Lk-Acts is still extant in the 
original Greek, those to Mk and Jn survive only in Latin translation. 
The world of New Testament scholarship is greatly indebted to 
DeBruyne for the patient search of years, now rewarded by the 
discovery of these early formulations against Marcion by the Church 
catholic of its own version of the origin of the canonical writings; also 
for the skill with which he has firmly established certain earlier 
surmises as to a Greek original of these long imperfectly known " Latin 
Prologues," located this Greek original at Rome "during the period 
when Greek was still the language of the Roman church," and proved 
that the three surviving prologues formed originally a consistent 
group, produced by a single writer at a given date to meet a single 
definite purpose. Not least must we thank him for a demonstration 
from the phenomena of dissemination that the Latin translation of 
these prologues emanates from North Africa, the home of Tertullian, 
but a few decades after Tertullian 's death. DeBruyne 's entire exposi- 
tion is given with admirable lucidity, extreme conciseness and ac- 
curate reference. What scholar will venture to criticize it without 
sincere acknowledgment? 

Secondly, the present writer stands in the position of the inexpert 
lawyer who by reason of his own technical blunder has seen his good 
case thrown out of court, and to obtain a further hearing must submit 
an amended plea. 

The proposal to divide Paragraph A from Paragraph B by beginning 
Paragraph B Recte veruio. ignores the distinction between verum and 



460 APPENDED NOTES 

vero. The post-positive form of the conjunction is vero. The proposed 
punctuation requires the form Recte vero. DeBruyne insists (rightly 
in our judgment) on retaining rede. It is easier to account for its 
cancellation before verum than to explain it away as an interpolation. 
Acknowledging the error we ask leave to resubmit the plea in the 
form Recte vero Marcion. 

But we shall be told vero is "contrary to the Mss." We venture 
still to maintain that the verdict of the Mss. is at least disputable, and 
that "good sense" positively requires the punctuation and reading 
now proposed. The apparatus criticus gives the following: 

9 descr. -recte qui hoc evangelium, iohanne sibi dictante (diet, sibi 
EY subdictante T), conscripsit TXEY 10 archinon T. 

The bearing of this witness is two-fold. It concerns (1) the ending 
of Paragraph A; (2) the occurrence of one m or two after veru (o). We 
will take the two questions in order. 

(1) It is apparent that the group of scribes represented by Mss. 
TXEY felt the incongruity of the word recte at the end of Paragraph A 
just as moderns do. For certainly we cannot adopt the ludicrous 
interpretation of Corssen that John dictated while standing "erect" 
(!) ; neither is it satisfactory to maintain with Harnack and DeBruyne 
that the Prologue-writer felt it needful to assure the reader that John 
dictated "correctly." The cancellation of this word by the important 
group TXEY, to say nothing of the modified close : qui hoc evangelium, 
iohanne sibi (sc. Papias) dictante conscripsit, shows beyond question 
that to the mind of these scribes the word recte, wherever it might 
belong, did not belong there. 2 

(2) The reason why recte is felt to be de trop by TXEY is un- 
doubtedly because they read the next word as verum. Since this 
form of the conjunction invariably begins the sentence recte had 
either to be dropped (so TXEY) or attached to the end of Paragraph 
A (so the other Mss.) ; because the name Marcion could not (in most 
cases) be mistaken. But the scribe of T (oldest of all the Mss.) does 
mistake it. He gives us the extraordinary form "Archinon" drawing 
the single m to the preceding word verum. In other words his eye (or 
ear) caught but one m, and this m he gave to the conjunction, whereas 
it really belonged to the noun. We may not be correct in holding that 
the doubling of the m in the later Mss. is merely due to dittography 
from the name "Marcion" which followed, but at least we may claim 
in this case also that to read Recte vero Marcion, etc., is not entirely 
without Ms. support. 

Either of the foregoing alternatives allows of punctuation according 
to sense without being justly considered contrary either to grammar or 
2 Prochorus (c. 500), seems to have read verum. See Art. II, p. 149 f . 



THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 461 

Mss. We may omit rede altogether with TXEY, beginning Paragraph 
B Verum Marcion, etc., or we may begin it Recte vero Mar don, cancel- 
ling one m on the evidence of T, and reading o for u. The latter course 
seems to me preferable because reduplication of m is more probable 
than interpolation of the word rede. One alternative or the other is 
really required by the sense. 

The question of punctuation, and whether Paragraph A should end 
descripsit . . . didante lohanne, or lohanne sibi didante conscripsit, 
or even descripsit . . . didante lohanne rede, is subordinate. The 
question of real importance is whether Paragraph B is or is not 
dependent on Tertullian. On this issue DeBruyne must be heard in 
extenso. We will translate exactly the paragraph (p. 208) in which 
he states his conclusion: 

Let us pass to the story about Marcion, where the difficulties are so 
enormous that a remedy must be sought. The sentence as received means 
that Marcion was condemned by Papias for his errors, that he was after- 
ward rejected, excommunicated by John. It was to John (ad eum) that 
the heretic had presented writings or letters (apparently letters of com- 
mendation), granted by the Christians of the province of Pontus. Ob- 
viously this cannot be historical. But where lies the difficulty? Which is 
the impossible word? I answer, db iohanne, To begin with there are many 
iohannes in our prologue, five in five lines. That is too many. Next, Papias 
strikes me as a too emancipated disciple: in a grave matter of doctrine he 
does not consult his teacher, he takes the initiative and condemns, John 
merely follows the lead of his disciple. Then, the anachronism is violent; 
who can have imagined that John was still living in the period of Marcion? 
Finally our prologue was written at Rome; granting that in the West 
chronology was so defective that the Romans could actually believe that 
John had rejected Marcion, what interest had they to recall the condemna- 
tion pronounced by Papias? Alongside of John Papias was of no account 
and might as well vanish. That is why ab iohanne cannot be the true 
reading; it has been introduced mechanically, by a copyist or by the trans- 
lator; after so many preceding iohannes it has displaced some other name, 
the name, I should surmise, of some Roman authority. In that case all is 
explained. According to Tertullian it was at Rome that Marcion presented 
his letters, and our prologue says the same thing, independently of Ter- 
tullian. Thus one can understand the mention of Papias : John was dead, 
Marcion was condemned in Asia by a disciple of John (correctly or incor- 
rectly our author says by Papias). Finally, it seems to me wholly im- 
probable that in a prologue written at Rome, there should be no mention 
of the issue to which the Marcionite conflict was brought at Rome: the 
controversy in Asia had been a mere skirmish, the decisive blow was 
struck at Rome. 

DeBruyne 's criticism of "the sentence as received," making Papias 
the antecedent of ab eo, is unanswerable. To make Papias, or any 
other "disciple of John in Asia," the hero of the encounter with Mar- 



462 APPENDED NOTES 

cion changes the whole thing into absurdity. DeBruyne will hear 
nothing of explanation by dependence on Tertullian ("Contre Bacon 
je rejette toute de*pendance vis a vis de Tertullien"). "The difficulties 
are so enormous that remedy must be sought." His "remedy" is the 
best example since Marcion of removal from the text of "everything 
contrary to his own opinion." And even so the result is not attained. 
Cancel ab iohanne in the clause abiectus est ab iohanne, substitute for it 
"some Roman authority" and you still have the brethren hi Pontus 
addressing letters of commendation to a "Roman authority" which 
Marcion nevertheless presents to a disciple of John "in Asia." 

Every Ms., on DeBruyne 's own showing, contains the obnoxious 
ab iohanne, without any variant whatever. . The Marcionesque emen- 
dation, somewhat hesitatingly proposed by Harnack on p. 30 of his 
Neue Studien zu Marcion (1923), is seized upon with avidity by De- 
Bruyne as an escape from the proof of dependence on Tertullian. 
Both originator and sponsor for the conjectural reading ignore the 
fact that Harnack himself, in his original discussion of the Prologue 
(p. 11), had pointed out that Philastrius (Haer. 45) not later than 
384 A.D. already makes the same statement as the Prologue. 
Marcion, says Philastrius, came to Rome devictus atque fugatus 
A BEATO IOHANNE EVANGELiSTA et a presbuteris de civitate Efesi. 

The conventional addition et a presbuteris makes no difference with 
this decisive witness of Philastrius. The prologue read in 384 A.D. 
precisely as now. But to assume its statement to be historical (even 
substituting "Papias" for "John") is to maintain that the whole 
affair of Marcion 's expulsion at Ephesus remained unknown at Rome, 
and that even the record of it escaped the attention of all the many 
writers "Against Marcion" from Justin to Hippolytus, well ac- 
quainted as they were with Papias, to crop up in a third century 
African prologue-writer ignorant even of the name of Papias ' book. 
Whether this supposition be in accord with "good sense" must be 
left to the reader's judgment. 

DeBruyne falls back upon "grammar." On p. 208 he tells us that 
"ab eo must (doit} refer to the subject of descripsit, that is to say 
Papias." We answer, Yes, if the grammar be that of the classic 
Latinity of nineteenth-century scholars, and if Paragraph A and 
Paragraph B were originally a unit. Both suppositions are denied. 
DeBruyne holds "Bacon" responsible for the fact that the figurative 
language of Tertullian becomes "confused" (brouille") in Paragraph B. 
But who is responsible for the ambiguities of the demonstrative is 
in the three remaining occurrences in the same paragraph after the 
first a& eo? 3 

3 The substitution of sibi for eo in the variant above cited (TXEY iohanne sibi 
dictante) is very likely due to an attempt to remove the ambiguity complained of. 



THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 463 

DeBruyne was doubtless deterred from any consideration of Art. 
I by his discovery of a regrettable grammatical error in Art. II. The 
fault therefore is my own. But if he had not been thus deterred he 
would have read on p. 209 reasons for doubting that "the Greek 
argumentum included the second, anti-Marcionite paragraph." 
Dependence on Tertullian would of course compel us to date both 
paragraphs "in the latter half of the third century," where DeBruyne 
reasonably places the Latin translation, if the whole prologue were a 
unit. But there is no need to bring down Paragraph A to this late 
date. It is true that even Paragraph A quotes Papias at second hand, 
perhaps through the medium of Hippolytus, and for this and other 
reasons must be dated later than the period of Melito of Sardis, where 
DeBruyne would place it. DeBruyne admits a probable relation to 
Irenaeus, but insists that the dependence is on Irenaeus' part (!). He 
considers it a sufficient answer to my citation of the clause discipulus 
Johannis earns to say "But Irenaeus does not quote this witness of 
Papias." Of course. What Irenaeus does allege (mistakenly, as Eu- 
sebius showed) is that Papias was "a hearer (aKova-Trjs) of John" 
(Haer. V, xxxiii. 4; cf. Euseb. H. E. Ill, xxxix. 7). Had our Prologue- 
writer quoted Irenaeus exactly the question of priority might be 
disputable. The fact that he exaggerates in the direction of the Catena 
edited by Corderius, 4 to make Papias a "dear disciple" and the 
amanuensis of the Gospel, is clear proof that Irenaeus is the earlier 
and does not "depend on the prologue" (p. 206). 

A date for the composition of the original Greek prologues at Rome 
in the period of Hippolytus is entirely probable. Paragraph A of the 
prologue to Jn may well contain a reminiscence (borrowed from 
Hippolytus' defense of the Johannine canon or some similar work, 
much as the Latin translator borrows in 250-300 from Tertullian) 
of Papias' testimony to the authenticity of the Apocalypse referred to 
by Andreas. Papias had no more to say about the authorship of the 
fourth Gospel than his contemporary Justin, and for the same reason. 
Claims of apostolic authorship for the anonymous Epistles and Gospel 
had not yet been openly made, or at least not officially endorsed. 
Johannine authorship is suggested in Jn 21:24, but the suggestion is 
purposely "veiled." Open affirmation would have invited the same 
violent denial which had greeted the affirmation of Rev. 1:9-11. 

For the history of the canonization of the Gospels it is unfortunate 
that both the Muratorianum and the Anti-Marcionite Prologues 
should be defective as respects the first Gospel of the canon. In both 
cases we are obliged to resort to conjecture. However, conjecture is 
less likely to go astray in this case than in any other. 

4 Cited in Lightfoot-Harmer, Apostolic Fathers (1891), p. 524. 



464 APPENDED NOTES 

It is practically certain that the Muratorianum repeated in sub- 
stance the statement of Papias. Mt was certainly counted "The 
first of the Gospels." In addition we can be sure its apostolic author- 
ship was emphasized, because the statement made in regard to Luke 
tamen nee ipse vidit (sc. dominum) in came distinctly implies a similar 
statement in regard to Mark as having not himself seen the Lord, but 
only reported faithfully what he had heard of the utterances of Peter 
(quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit). Such a statement might be made 
regarding the second and third Gospels by a canon-maker of A.D. 180- 
250; but only on the supposition that he had first emphasized the 
universal conviction of all church writers of his time, the belief 
already implied in Papias, that in Mt could be found that complete 
and apostolic authority for the teaching of Jesus which was indispen- 
sable to the Church's own teaching. The Muratorianum comes from 
the same church as the Greek prologues, belongs to about the same 
period, and represents the same interest, for in its section devoted to 
the objectionable writings epistles "to the Laodiceans" (the Mar- 
cionite Ephesians which was thus entitled?), and "to the Alexan- 
drians" (Hebrews?) are denounced as "falsely ascribed to Paul in the 
interest of Marcion 's heresy" (Pauli nomine finctae ad heresim Mar- 
cionis). Thus the Muratorianum also is distinctly " Anti-Marcionite." 

Whatever the measure of success which may attend future efforts 
to restore the Anti-Marcionite prologue to Mt we have at least this 
important indication of the opposition against which it was directed, 
that Tertullian in the passage already quoted from his treatise 
"Against Marcion" (Adv. Marc. IV, iii.) speaks of Marcion as "labor- 
ing to overthrow the standing of those Gospels which are specially as- 
cribed by name to apostles " (connititur ad destruendum statum eorum 
evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur) . This ex- 
pression cannot be satisfied by any mere disregard on Marcion 's part, 
or tacit ignoring, of Mt and Jn, the Gospels whose authors, as Tertul- 
lian says, "came first instilling faith, while Luke and Mark renew it 
afterward." Marcion must have directly assailed the church's claim 
to possess in these two Gospels authentic writings of the two apostles 
whose names they still bear. We may perhaps infer from our knowl- 
edge of controversy in Phrygia in 167 A.D. over the question whether 
"Matthew" was or was not in conflict with Jn as regards the date of 
the passion (Pasch. Chron. Fragt, of Claudius Apollinaris), and our 
further knowledge of opposition raised in the period of Cerinthus to 
admission of Mt with its Birth Epiphany to equal standing with the 
Roman Baptism-Epiphany Gospel of Mk (Irenaeus, Haer. Ill, xi. 7), 
that Marcion pursued in this assault upon the status of Mt and Jn his 
favorite method of alleging contradiction. The reason will then be 
apparent for the particularizing by the Muratorianum of the "nativ- 



THE ANTI-MARCIONITE PROLOGUES 465 

ity" and the "passion and resurrection" as features in which the 
alleged conflict is denied. 

Whatever the particular nature of Marcion 's assault it is important 
to observe that already c. 140 at Rome claims were being made for 
Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel. These, however, had not 
as yet obtained official sanction, else the relative disregard of Jn by 
Justin would be inexplicable. From the moment of such official 
endorsement of the claim, giving Jn the status assailed by Marcion, 
the tendency so clearly manifested by Tertullian would become 
apparent to adopt the order Jn, Mt, or at least Mt, Jn, before Lk and 
Mk. The fourth place assigned to Jn by the Muratorianum confirms 
the other proofs of a relatively late date for its admission to equal 
standing with the Synoptics in the Roman canon. 

Nevertheless, in Tertullian 's reference to Marcion 's assault upon 
its status we have evidence suggestive of a curious parallel between 
the acceptance of Mt at Rome but a few years after the arrival thither 
of Ignatius in spite of the protests of Adoptionists such as Cerinthus, 
and the acceptance there of Jn a few decades after the momentous 
visit of Poly carp. For Poly carp's visit implied consideration for the 
Ephesian Gospel on which the Asiatics rested their Quartodeciman 
Easter observance. In spite of the vehement resistance of Caius and 
the Alogi, we find after a few decades the Ephesian Gospel accepted 
in Rome to equal standing with the Synoptics. In the case of Mt it 
was the Adoptionism of Mk which offered resistance to the newcomer, 
in the case of Jn the Roman method of observance of Easter. In both 
cases the resistance was overcome by the claim of apostolic authority 
supported by immense personal prestige. The influential churchmen 
were the two great martyrs Ignatius and Polycarp. 

So far as we know neither of these made the specific claim of 
apostolic authorship for the Gospel which he favored. The Gospels in 
question were doubtless already known at Rome in advance of either 
visit. Polycarp 's surviving Epistle shows acquaintance indeed only 
with the Johannine Epistles, not the Gospel, although the issue of 154 
A.D. when the aged bishop of Smyrna visited Anicetus at Rome, 
turned upon the Passion story of the Gospel. Polycarp can hardly 
have debated the question of apostolic authorship. Still the paral- 
lelism in the course of events after the coming of Ignatius, champion 
of Mt, and the coming of Polycarp, champion of apostolic Easter 
observance as supported by Jn, is such as to lend color to the story 
related by Irenaeus (Haer. Ill, iii. 4) that Polycarp during this visit 
"caused many to turn away from the heresies of Valentinus and 
Marcion" and even that he applied the denunciations of the Johan- 
nine Epistles to Marcion himself when the latter appealed to him for 
recognition of the sect. Polycarp 's own Epistle (vii. 1) is indeed the 



466 APPENDED NOTES 

probable source of this feature of the story, but we need not doubt 
that Polycarp when in Rome set his face as resolutely against the 
Marcionites as the Marcionites against him and the "Johannine" 
tradition which he represented. 

If we may accept Tertullian's statement regarding Marcion 's 
assault upon the status of the two Gospels for which the Roman church 
claimed apostolic authority two important results follow as to the 
process of canonization of the Gospels at Rome. (1) The beginnings 
of the claim of apostolic authorship for the fourth Gospel, resting, as 
we have seen, on Jn 21:24 f., must be dated slightly earlier than was 
maintained in my book The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, 
1909. Also the denial of it by Marcion. The visit of Polycarp will 
not have begun, but only accentuated the issue. (2) The claim of 
apostolic authorship for Mt will have been made considerably earlier, 
and with the official sanction of Roman church authority. It is with 
this latter that we are here primarily concerned. 

If it is true that Marcion "labored to overthrow the standing of 
Mt " as an apostolic writing we have here the most promising clue to 
the origin of the strange tradition discussed in Chapter IV, which 
dates an official decision of the Roman church authorities in favor of 
the Birth-epiphany of Mt and the apostolic authority of the writing in 
120 A.D. To perpetuate the memory of this momentous decision, 
including both circumstances and date, all that was needful was that 
Marcion should have referred to it in his "labored" assault. And 
if it be the fact that Marcion c. 140 A.D. did thus attempt to "over- 
throw the status of Mt" the first thing in his assault would almost 
necessarily be the statement that the claim of Mt rested on nothing 
more substantial than the decision of a local council de redpiendis 
libris held at Rome no more than twenty years before. 



APPENDED NOTE IV 
THE LITTLE APOCALYPSE IN MK AND MT 

LIMITATIONS of space forbid more than a brief statement of conclu- 
sions reached in the full discussion of GM, Chh. VII-XI. Mt's 
changes from Mk nowhere indicate priority, nor the use of any source 
outside of Mk save S and the Old Testament. The theory of a "little 
apocalypse" employed by Mk solely in Ch. 13 has, however, justifica- 
tion to this extent: Paul does refer in I Thess. 4:15 to a "word of the 
Lord" typically apocalyptic in character and apparently fundamen- 
tal to I and II Thess. He is not referring to an utterance in the flesh 
but to some "prophetic" message delivered in the name of "the 
Lord " in the desperate crisis of 40 A.D. (cf. Rev. 1 :1). Slight modifica- 
tions to this primitive apocalypse are already introduced by Paul, 
adapting it to the changed conditions of A.D. 50. Mk 13 follows the 
outline of this (oral?) apocalypse, combining it with certain S logia 
and passages from Daniel and Micah, but with further modifications 
made necessary by the events of A.D. 70. He attaches the whole, after 
a characteristic method (cf. 4:10 ff.; 7:17 ff.) to the authentic logion 
13:1 f. Our present problem concerns the origin of verses 5 f. and 
21-23 (an S logion) and the supplements and changes made by Mt. 

Mt is probably correct in interpreting Mk 13:14-23 as to some 
extent epexegetical of verses 5-13. Neither evangelist intends to 
convey the idea that there are to be two periods of 7r\avfj, two of 
"wars," and two of "tribulation," though Mark's somewhat clumsy 
attachment of the more detailed statement of verses 14-23 suggests 
that at least the ir\avrj against which warning is uttered in verses 
21-23 is a second, following after the wars and suffering of 14-20 
as the ir\avi] of verses 5 f . precedes the wars and suffering predicted 
in 7-13. In reality the whole Markan discourse is meant as a single 
warning not to be "led astray." 

The general prediction (verse 6) "Many will come in my name 
saying, I am (the expected One) and shall lead many astray" is 
repeated after the long digression of verses 7-20 descriptive of the 
various trials to be endured before the End, in order to resume the 
thread of the exhortation. Mk now adds a Q logion (Mt 24:26= 
Lk 17:23), attaching an explanatory comment of his own (13:22 f.) 
of which we must speak presently. In the meantime he explains in 
detail the Beginning of Woes spoken of in general terms in verses 7 f . 
and supplemented in 9-13 by warnings to endure patiently until the 

467 



468 APPENDED NOTES 

End. Verses 14-20 continue in the same vein describing the Culmina- 
tion of Woes. These begin with the Profanation and continue with 
description of the tribulation of "those that are in Judea." The 
reference to scenes of the Jewish war is unmistakable and serves to 
date the paragraph following, introduced as it is by "at that time" 
(rare) . 

But we are concerned only with this, a Q logion (Mt 24:26-28= 
Lk 17:23 f., 37) wherein Mk resumes his original warning of verse 6, 
adding in verse 22 an explanatory comment of his own. The relation 
of Mt 24:15-22 to Mk 13:14-20 has been made clear in my Gospel 
of Mark (pp. 110 ff.), it now remains only to deal with this renewed 
Warning against Error (Mk 13:21-23) and the relation to it of Mt 
24:23-25. 

Mk makes a time connection, as we have seen, between the Great 
Tribulation of the Jewish war and the logion of Jesus against the 
prognosticators who calculate the date for the Coming saying "Lo 
here; lo, there." To his mind this saying may be taken as a definite 
prediction by Jesus of the rise of a particular school of "false Christs 
and false prophets" not long after the Great Tribulation nor long 
before the celestial signs of the End. The heretics are characterized 
by two distinctive traits, a self-deifying "I am" style of utterance, 
and the performance of "great signs and wonders, to deceive, if this 
were possible, even the elect." 

We have also seen that it is the same TrXavg, not an earlier one, 
against which the warning of verses 5 f . is uttered, for the characteri- 
zation is identical save for the non-mention of the magic miracles. 
The deceivers will come saying, "I am" and will lead many astray. 
The picture seems to be that of two self-deifying thaumaturgists 
of Syria in 60-100. Those who recall the manner in which Origen 
(Ctr. Cels. VI, xi) and the earlier heresiologues characterize the false 
teaching of Dositheus, Simon the Magian and Menander, an early 
school of Jewish Gnosticism (cf. Ti. 1 :10, 14, 16) which we may desig- 
nate the Samaritan school, will admit that it would be difficult within 
the same brief compass of words to describe more exactly Simon 
Magus and his succession; for in Acts 8:9-24 Simon Magus is made 
the prime author of all false doctrine heresy and schism. The "school " 
includes Simon's predecessor Dositheus and his successor Menander, 
both Samaritans like himself. 

Unfortunately Acts does not enable us to date the appearance of 
the arch-heretic and wonder-worker Simon with complete exactness. 
When Luke wrote Simon was already a quasi-legendary figure; but 
that requires no great lapse of time. The heresiologues suggest rather 
the last decades of the century as the period in which Syrian Gnosti- 
cism began seriously to threaten the Church. We have no reason to 



THE LITTLE APOCALYPSE IN MK AND MT 469 

suppose that political false messiahs were ever a menace to it. The 
warning of Mk 13:5 f., 21-23 = Mt 24:4 f., 23 f. we take to be aimed 
at the Samaritan school of Jewish Gnosticism. 

McNeile, in his comment on Mt. 24:23, shows that he fails to grasp 
its co-ordination with the general warning of verses 5 ff., as set forth 
in our text. He rightly points out that in both Mt and Mk "the 
words are represented as spoken after the tribulation of Antichrist, 
as though yet further delay must be expected before the Parousia." 
But he dismisses this natural and correct understanding on the 
ground that it "conflicts with eiiflecos KT\. in verse 29, which forms 
the true sequel of verse 22." As we have observed in our text, this 
is not the case. Mt's "immediately after the tribulation of those 
days" refers primarily to the sufferings of the Church described in 
verses 9-13, of which the special sufferings of "those in Judea" after 
the Profanation of a holy place and the ensuing war and siege of Jeru- 
salem form only a part. In two respects Mt shows on the contrary 
the consciousness of a considerable interval between the siege and 
the ir\avr], and that even more distinctly than Mk: (1) He rewrites 
the paragraph of Mk urging endurance to the End (Mk 13:9-13), 
which he had previously employed in 10:17-21, making it more ap- 
parent than in Mk that he has in mind general persecution through- 
out the Gentile world. He also adds three verses descriptive of the 
irXav-fj, which he holds responsible for the demoralization of the 
Church (10-12). (2) He adds to it three supplementary verses (26- 
28), which give in fuller form the Q logion employed by Mk. 

Bracketed between these two supplements the Markan section on 
the Great Tribulation is hi much less danger of being confused with 
the special tribulation of "those that are in Judea." Taken as a whole, 
therefore, the changes made by Mt in Mk's Doom-chapter are indica- 
tive of a later date. On the other hand Mk's own arrangement of 
his material not only implies the fall of Jerusalem as already past 
but that "yet further delay must be expected before the Parousia." 
Mk cannot be dated earlier than the menace of Simonian thauma- 
turgic heresy (70-100), Mt must be dated (on the evidence of this 
as well as other adapted Mk passages) a decade or so later still. 



APPENDED NOTE V 
SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS IN S 

MT has over 100 quotations and uses of the Old Testament. Of these 
90 per cent leave no doubt regarding their source as between Hebrew 
and Greek text. Allen's demonstration (ICC, pp. Ixif ) that R's Bible 
is the LXX leaves no room for Soltau's theory of a final Redactor 
responsible for the few quotations based on the Hebrew text, most of 
which appear in the Preamble and none outside the additions which 
we have ascribed to N. The ninety per cent tell the story of final re- 
daction and call for no further consideration. With few exceptions 
(which we shall consider presently) the LXX quotations are borrowed 
from Mk, and where variation appears it is mostly in the way of 
closer assimilation to the LXX text. 

On the other hand the ten per cent traceable with greater or less 
probability, directly or indirectly, to the Hebrew text call for very 
careful study. Allen enumerates them as the following: [1:22 f.;] 
2:5, 6, 15, 17 f., 23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4 f.; 27:9. He 
makes the following observations concerning the group: 

(1) Five of them, viz. 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4 f., seem to 
have been inserted into or appended to a section of Mk by the editor. 

(2) Six of them, viz. [1:23]; 2:6, 15, 17 f., 23; 27:9, might seem to be an 
integral part of the narrative in which they stand. 

(3) One of them, 2:23, cannot be verified. 

(4) All of them are introduced by a striking formula. 

The formula, slightly varied, is "that it might be fulfilled which 
was spoken by the prophet." Before continuing with Allen's observa- 
tions it will be desirable at this point, in order to appreciate the true 
significance of his list, to interject a word of criticism. 

To Allen the formula assumes somewhat undue importance. As 
will presently appear this is simply another instance of the well known 
habit of R mt to adopt and stereotype phrases which he finds in his 
sources. Hence its non-appearance in an otherwise characteristic 
member of the group gives no ground for exclusion, neither can we 
argue for inclusion from its occurrence in an instance otherwise 
fundamentally unlike the rest, such as 1:23 (based exclusively on 
LXX). We therefore enclose in [ ] this first member of the list. 

We may also remark upon the last two items. 

Mt 21 :4 f . attaches to Mk 11 :1-10 by means of the formula referred 

470 



SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS IN S 471 

to a quotation blended of Is. 62:11 and Zee. 9:9. Now Mk is obviously 
influenced by the passage from Zee. 9:9 in the Greek, for he tells us 
that the colt was unbroken (Mk 11:2), a fact obtainable only from 
the LXX rendering of "the foal of an ass" by ir&Kov vkov, that is, 
a "new" or "unbroken" colt. But Mt, who omits this erroneous 
inference, bases his quotation upon the Hebrew text, and with such 
attention to minutiae that he even makes Jesus use both animals, 
the ass and the colt. For the data we may refer to Dittmar (Vetus 
Testamentum in Novo, 1903, ad loc.). 

The quotation 27:9 f., which Mt refers to "Jeremiah the prophet, " 
but which is really a blend of Zee. 11:12 f. with Jer. 32:6-15; 18:2 f., 
is introduced by the same formula as those already mentioned and 
has features (indicated by Dittmar) which recall the Hebrew text. 
First of all, however, we should observe that there is no foundation 
for Jerome's pretense of having found the passage in an apocryphon 
leremiae. Schmidtke (Judenchristliche Evangelien, p. 253) reveals 
its real origin as follows: 

Origen, whose Commentary on Mt was in Jerome's hands, pointed out 
the possibility that the quotation Mt 27:9 might be derived from a secreta 
leremiae scriptura; suggesting that in case anyone took offence at his 
referring to the expression 8ui 'lepeptov as an error he might enquire 
whether the passage were not to be found in some secreta leremiae. Jerome, 
after his habitual manner, at once turned the possibility suggested in his 
copy into reality, and presented himself in the role of the scholar apos- 
trophized by Origen, who finds the quotation "word for word" ad 
verbum is emphasized to offset the observation that in Zechariah we find 
verba diversa in an apocryphum Jeremiae. 

Note VI will show that the pretense in question is far from excep- 
tional with Jerome. 

But we must return to Allen, who proceeds to demonstrate (in 
substantial agreement with Dittmar) that the basis of all the list 
save 1 :23 is really the Hebrew rather than the Greek text: 

(5) [1:23 agrees in the main with the LXX;] 2:6 seems to be an inde- 
pendent rendering of the Hebrew; 2:15 is also a rendering of the Hebrew; 
2:18 is apparently quoted from the LXX, with reminiscence of the Hebrew 
in ra rcKva avrfs; 2:23 cannot be traced; 4:15 f. is from a Greek version 
but not from the LXX; 8:17 is an independent translation from the He- 
brew; 12:17-21 is from the Hebrew, with reminiscence of the LXX in 
the last clause, or more probably from a current Greek version, which is 
already implied in Mk 1:11; 1 13:35 seems to be an independent transla- 
tion from the Hebrew, with reminiscence of the LXX in the first clause; 
21:5 agrees partly with the Hebrew, partly with the LXX; 27:9 appears 
to be a free translation, with reminiscence of the LXX. Further, 2:6 seems 

*On this quotation from Is. 42:1-3 and 4b see below. 



472 APPENDED NOTES 

to come in the main from Mic. 5:1-4, with assimilation of the last clause 
to II Sam. 5:2; 12:18 from Is. 42:1-4, with assimilation of the last clause 
to Hab. 1:4 (Heb.); Mt 21:5 is a conflation of Is. 62:11 and Zee. 9:9; 27:9 f. 
comes from Zee. 11:13, but has probably been influenced by Jer. 32:6-9. 

The significance of what Allen here refers to as "reminiscences from 
the LXX" and "assimilations" to other Old Testament passages 
will be discussed presently. We must pass now from these Reflexionsci- 
tate, most of which have an unmistakable basis in the Hebrew text, 
and which we have assigned to N, to a third group, mostly found in 
Q, of which the derivation is more or less dubious. The question now 
concerns the Old Testament quotations of S. 

Attention has been called in our text to the remarkable freedom of 
rendering displayed in the Q passage Mt ll:10 = Lk 7:27, reproduced 
in identical terms in Mk 1:2. This is a quotation of Mai. 3:1 on the 
part of S, recognizable as made memoriter because of the blending with 
("assimilation to") Ex. 23:20. The exactitude of transcription in all 
three Synoptic Gospels compels us to hold that in this quotation all 
three rest ultimately on the same Greek document. We must now 
enquire whether this quotation, clearly derived from S, is typical of 
the S quotations generally. 

It is highly desirable to gain some light on the question of the orig- 
inal language of S; and if the variations of its Scripture quotations 
from LXX are sufficient, a reasonable inference may be drawn that 
its original language was not Greek. This would confirm the view 
based by several critics on apparent mistranslations surviving both 
in Mt and Lk, that its original language was Aramaic. 

It should be remembered that the chance of double survival for 
Semitisms in quotations is small. Translation from the original lan- 
guage into the Greek S known to our Synoptists would tend to 
eliminate many, transcription from this Greek S to the pages of our 
canonical evangelists (Q material) would eliminate others still. Such 
Semitisms as might possibly survive would tend to be in the less well 
known writings of the Old Testament, such as Malachi, because the 
inclination of translators and transcribers to substitute words carried 
in their memories ("reminiscences") for the actual words of the 
document before them would be greater in proportion to the familiar- 
ity of the text. It must needs, then, be a rarity if any Scripture quota- 
tion from S retains after this double process of purging enough of 
its original tincture to enable us to say with confidence: "This quota- 
tion was not made from the LXX, it is a free rendering from the He- 
brew, or at least shows a degree of independence from the LXX not 
found in our Synoptists' quotations." This answer can really be given 
in the case of the blend of Mai. 3:1 with Ex. 23:20. Is it possible to 
apply it to other cases? 



SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS IN S 473 

Dittmar suggests the possibility of resort to the Hebrew text in 
the employment of Ps. 6:9 in Mt 7:23 = Lk 13:27 where the LXX 
give dTrooTTjTe air' e/ioi) TT&VTK ol epyafojueroi rty dz>o/uaz>. The word 
'epy&raL in Lk and the word dTroxwpetre in Mt vary from LXX and 
are therefore marked by Dittmar as resting on the Hebr., though the 
sense is not affected. So far as the instance goes it suggests independ- 
ence of the LXX. This would also be indicated by the final word in 
Lk, not avoula, as LXX and Mt, but dSiKia. Mt's motive for assimi- 
lating to LXX would be very strong hi the case of this word dw/ua. 
There remains, therefore, a certain probability that S rendered freely, 
Mt assimilating to LXX as he has done in several Mk quotations. 

A certain possibility of independence from LXX may also be indi- 
cated by the use of aotya instead of <j>p6vr)(ns in Mt 12:42=Lk 11:31 
in quoting I Kings 10:4; but Ms. A adds the word <ro0ta in verse 7. 

The Q material unfortunately furnishes but few further examples. 
If we limit ourselves strictly to Harnack's 59 sections there are no 
employments of the Old Testament close enough to apply our tests 
except in the Temptation story (Mt 4:l-ll = Lk 4:1-13). Here Dt. 
8:3, Ps. 91:11 f. and Dt. 6:16 and 13 are quoted by Mt and Lk 
with slight differences from one another (in 4:4 Mt extends the quo- 
tation to the end of the verse quoted; in 4:10 Lk includes the clause 
"to keep thee" omitted by Mt). There is no trace of influence from 
the Hebrew in either Mt or Lk, save in some forms of the /? text. 
(Syr. Sin. in Mt 4:4 has "mouth of the Lord" with Hebr. Codex D 
in Mt 4:7 has ob Treipdo-ew where other texts of Mt and all texts of 
Lk have with LXX owe eK7retpd<reis. The D reading might be regarded 
as an independent rendering of the Hebrew, though there is no differ- 
ence of meaning.) The most that can be said regarding these three 
quotations found in Q material is that they show a certain freedom 
in dividing the quotation from Ps. 91 by needlessly introducing "and" 
before "they shall bear thee up," which perhaps exceeds what we 
should expect from Mt or Lk. All three quotations are made memori- 
ter, but such would naturally be the case in any event. In the quota- 
tion from Dt 6:13 we have the interesting phenomenon of agreement 
between Mt, Lk, and the A text of LXX against the Hebrew; for the 
Hebrew has "fear" instead of "worship" and does not include the 
word "only. " This should probably be regarded as a case of depend- 
ence by the New Testament writers on the LXX, but cannot be safely 
ascribed to S because of the tendency of translators and transcribers 
to substitute the text more familiar to themselves. 

Harnack also includes in his Section 22, though only by way of 
conjectural restoration, the direction to the Twelve to "shake off the 
dust from your feet" which Dittmar includes among his "quotations" 
because of the resemblance to Is. 52:2. Now Mk 6:11 in recording 



474 APPENDED NOTES 

the same direction uses the LXX term "clay" (XPVV), but Mt 10:14 
and Lk 10:11 use novioprbv, following the Hebrew "dust." This 
looks like a possible survival of the phraseology of S. 

But we need not strictly limit ourselves to Q. All critics are agreed 
that S included the bath qol of the Baptism "Thou art my Son," etc., 
because that is presupposed in the two temptations which begin "If 
thou art the Son of God." Again it has been shown to be probable 
that S included the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount in spite 
of the partial omission of the section by Lk. In the case of the former 
passage we shall endeavor to show that the quotation from Is. 42:1-4 
in Mt 12:18-21 is taken from S, where it applied to the divine call of 
Jesus at his baptism, and had been transferred by Mt to a new appli- 
cation, that of Jesus' repressing the clamor of the possessed. On this 
quotation see below. If we include these more doubtful elements of 
S the question of its employment of the Hebrew assumes a new aspect. 

In the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount the Scripture quota- 
tions are given with the freedom of memoriter citation, as we should 
expect in any case in view of their brevity and the great familiarity 
of the decalogue. The four are included in Hawkins' table of "Quota- 
tions recorded as spoken in the part of the Sermon on the Mount 
peculiar to Mt" (OS, p. 155, Class III), three of them (Nos. 3, 4, and 
5, Mt 5:31, 33, 38) are of sufficient extent and near enough to exact 
citation to warrant our consideration. Mt 5 :31 quotes freely Dt. 24 :1, 
omitting the unnecessary clause "and shall give it into her hand" 
(supplied by Syr. Sin.). The quotation coincided substantially with 
LXX, but less closely than Mt 19:7 = Mk 10:4. All that can be said 
regarding this difference is that the briefer form of Mt 5:31 shows 
greater freedom. Nowhere is there evidence of resort to the Hebrew. 
In 5:33 the command "Commit no perjury" (owe eTriop/c^creis) is less 
literal as a rendering of the Hebrew than LXX " Ye shall not swear by 
my name to an injustice" (ok 6/zet<r0e raj ovofj-arL juou kir' dSt/cw); 
but one can hardly call the former an independent rendering, because 
in such loose citation it might equally well be a mere abbreviation of 
the Greek. Mt 5:38 "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" only 
differs from either Hebrew or LXX in Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:20 and Dt. 
19:21 in the addition of the conjunction "and" (omitted in the /? 
text). Obviously no inference can be drawn as between Hebrew and 
Greek text. At the utmost it might be said that the addition of the 
conjunction shows a certain freedom in citation. 

There remains, however, one quotation of greater length than any 
other in the Gospel, the quotation of Is. 42:1-4 in Mt 12:17-21, which 
has no less than fifty-one words. Of these more than half (thirty-one 
according to Hawkins' count) vary from those of the LXX. Eleven 
of these thirty-one according to Dittmar's data (p. 28) coincide with 



SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS IN S 475 

the Hebrew as against the LXX, all eleven being in the portion which 
cites Is. 42:1-3. Strangely enough the final clause "and in his name 
shall the Gentiles hope," added from Is. 42:4b, is conspicuously 
derived from the LXX, which gives identically the same words; 2 
whereas the Hebrew has "and the isles shall wait for his law" (torah, 
i.e. } "teaching," "revelation," or "commandment"). Division of 
the quotation seems to be imperative, in fact even Schlatter (p. 402) 
is disposed to attribute the supplemental quotation of verse 21 
( = Is. 42:4b) to "a later hand." It appears to be in fact R's extension 
of the extract as in Mt 4:9 or Lk 3:5 f. Omission of the intervening 
words of Is. 42:4a, and sentiment (cf. 28:19) as well, support this 
probability, which becomes almost a certainty when the transfer of 
the quotation from its proper application is brought into the account. 

If the above reasoning is correct it becomes probable that the 
Scripture quotations of S were made on the basis, or at least with 
knowledge, of the Hebrew text, though in the course of translation 
and transcription most of this original coloration has disappeared. 
Per contra it becomes more apparent than ever that R's reliance was 
the LXX. Incidentally we gather that the attempted distinction of 
Allen, Hawkins, and others between "quotations avowedly introduced 
by the Author or Editor of the Gospel" and quotations otherwise 
introduced has little value. It is true that quite a series of quotations 
are introduced by the formula "This took place that the scripture 
might be fulfilled which was spoken by," or the like. As we have ob- 
served, many of these quotations are derived from some source 
which employed the Hebrew. It does not at all follow that the formula 
was drawn from this source. On the contrary R mt himself is a noto- 
rious coiner of formulas. Moreover, in this case as well as many 
others he had before him a model for the formula (Mk 1 :2 (cf. Mt 3 :3) ; 
13:14 (cf. Mt 14:15); 14:49). That others as well as R mt could use 
similar formulas is evidenced by Jn 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 36 as well as 
by the spurious verses Mt 27:35 and Mk 15:28. The quotations 
thus introduced by Mt in most cases show familiarity with the Hebrew 
text. We have ascribed these to N, meaning thereby an Aramaic 
targum of Mk to which the Scripture fulfillments had been attached. 
Others ascribe them to an early (Aramaic?) collection of testimonia. 
In either case they convey no further light on the sources of the Gos- 
pel. At most they speak for contact at some point in its history with 
an Aramaic-speaking Christian community. 

There remain two extended passages in Q of great importance, 

2 Kal T$ 6v6/j.art afrrov iQvi\ tXiriovffiv. a and /3 texts vary slightly in the construc- 
tion of 6v6fjLa.Ti, the a text using the preposition M (or the dative alone without 
preposition) the ft text using tv. Dittmar marks this iv as in agreement with 
the Hebrew. The reason why is not apparent. We therefore disregard it. 



476 APPENDED NOTES 

both of which are indicated to be quotations by their poetic form, 
one of them explicitly avowing itself a quotation from "the wisdom 
of God." This is not the title of an individual book but the general 
designation applied to the group of writings known as "wisdom." 
Clement of Rome in fact quotes a closely kindred passage (Prov. 
1:23-33) in ad Cor. Ivii. 3-7 as the utterance of "Wisdom, source of 
all the virtues" (17 iravaperos So$ta). This long Q quotation is given 
by Mt in 23 :34-36, by Lk in two parts: Lk 11 :49-51, where the source 
is named as "the wisdom of God," and 13:34 f., which Mt 23:34-36 
shows to be the immediate sequel of 11:49-51. The original of both 
these quotations has perished, so that no inference can be drawn as 
to language employed. As regards poetic form our translation (Part 
III) will enable the reader to judge whether the logion Mt 11:25 f.= 
Lk 10 :21 f . is or is not quoted from a wisdom source. If such be the 
case the contention of some that S did not employ extended quotations 
will meet decided opposition. Mt 23:34-36 = Lk 11:49-51; 13:34 f. 
is by no means brief, and as an undoubted Q passage must be derived 
from S. The same is true of Mt 11:25 f. = Lk 10:21 f., whose source is 
unfortunately even more obscure than that of Lk 11:49-51. The 
source of Mt 12:18-20 is not in doubt, and the citation is extensive. 
Unfortunately we have only inferential evidence that Mt borrowed it 
from S. Nevertheless the coincident and cumulative evidence of the 
three passages leaves little room to doubt that the quotations of S, 
though not limited to the canonical Old Testament, were at least as 
extensive as those of Mk or Lk. Where we can consult the original 
it would appear that they were cited memoriter from the Hebrew, 
or in a free Greek translation independent of the LXX. "Reminis- 
cence of LXX" easily accounts for the assimilation of a few brief 
and familiar Old Testament passages by our Synoptic evangelists 
to the Greek rendering to which they were most accustomed. 

There remains a small group of quotations less easily determinable. 
Very slight indications appear in the quotation from Hos. 6:6 twice 
employed by Mt (9:13 and 12:7) of derivation from the Hebr. 
(Most of the LXX texts have 77, not Kai ov with Mt and Hebr.) If 
the evidence has sufficient weight, the two passages should be classi- 
fied as N, otherwise R. 

Evidence for the use of the Hebrew text is stronger in the quota- 
tion erroneously ascribed to "Isaiah the prophet" (an indication of 
borrowing) in 13:35. At least the latter half of the quotation is 
independent of the LXX. Again we may ascribe the citation to N. 

The evidence in the quotation of Dt. 19:15 in 18:16 is of the same 
very dubious character as in 9 :13 and 12 :7. Reference to N is possible. 

In 21:9, 15, Mt takes over Mk's use of Ps. 118:25 f., apparently 
understanding the Hebrew word Hoshanna (rightly rendered 



SCRIPTURE QUOTATIONS IN S 477 

8fi by the LXX) as an ascription of praise! To Wernle this is proof 
positive that R knew neither Aramaic nor Hebrew. It can hardly be 
called decisive. However, in the next verse (21:16) R's quotation 
from Ps. 8:3 coincides verbatim with LXX, and the same is true of 
the long quotation in verse 42 which he takes over word for word 
from Mk. 

Mt 24:30a adds a quotation from Zee. 12:10-14, but whether on 
the basis of LXX or Hebr. it is impossible to say. 

In Mt 26:31 the quotation from Zee. 13:7 is taken over without 
change from Mk save for the addition at the close of the words "of 
the flock." Those two words rrjs iroLfiv^ appear in LXX A but 
not in other LXX texts. 

Finally in 27:43a if the use of "trusted in God" instead of "trusted 
in the Lord" can be regarded as evidence of dependence on the Hebrew 
text of Ps. 22:9 we have one more Scripture quotation to ascribe to 
N rather than to R personally. The stylizing of Mk 15:34 hi 27:46 
cannot be called assimilation to the Hebrew text in spite of Dittmar's 
symbols. 

Systematic examination of all possibilities of influence from the 
Hebrew text in the Scripture quotations of Mt thus tends only to 
confirm the conclusions reached in the case of the more conspicuous 
instances. A certain strain of influence from the Hebrew is undeniably 
apparent hi the passages classified under N. These passages, however, 
are not early or authentic, but conspicuously late and apocryphal in 
character. They are not due primarily to R mt , as maintained by 
Soltau, but are taken over by him from some source either written or, 
if oral, so completely stereotyped as to have all the values of a written 
source. Its nature, as inferred from the data at our disposal, has been 
sufficiently described. 

Influence from the Hebrew text is less easy to prove in the case of 
S. Reasons why this should be expected have already been given. 
A few data from Q material lead to the conclusion that S employed 
the Hebrew text, or at least used renderings quite independent of 
LXX. 

R is always dependent on the LXX. 



APPENDED NOTE VI 
MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 

CENTURIES of illusion and false reasoning have been caused by the 
superficiality and egotism of Jerome, who claimed for himself the 
discovery of the "original Hebrew" of the Gospel of Mt. Ever since 
the declaration of Papias referred to in our General Introduction (a 
statement reflecting current belief in 140-150 A.D.) that "Matthew 
compiled the logia in the Hebrew tongue and everyone used to trans- 
late them as he was able," travellers like Pantaenus who chanced upon 
the Aramaic rendering of our own Greek Mt current among the 
Nazarenes of Mesopotamia and known to modern scholars as the 
Gospel of the Nazarenes (Ev. Naz.), were exposed to the temptation to 
invert the relation between the two, calling the targum the original 
and the Greek Mt the translation. Of course the Nazarenes them- 
selves did their utmost to promote this misrepresentation, just as in 
modern times the "original Latin" of Mk is exhibited in Venice and 
the "original Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians" at Saloniki. We 
may imagine Papias getting his vague information directly or in- 
directly through Ignatius just as Clement of Alexandria gets his 
through Pantaenus. 

Eusebius in his H. E., written in 325, had as yet no direct knowledge 
of the Ev. Nas., for he records its survival down to the time of Pan- 
taenus (i.e., c. 185 A.D.) as a noteworthy fact. Between 325 and the 
writing of his Theophania in 333 he had obtained a copy, doubtless the 
same which Jerome subsequently made use of in the great library of 
Pamphilus left by Eusebius at Caesarea. From the respectful tone of 
Eusebius' references in the Theophania, he would seem to have given 
some weight to the claim of the "Aramaic Gospel" to be the "He- 
brew" original of Mt. A later writer, Apollinaris of Laodicea, who 
lived for years at Antioch and whose lectures there were attended by 
Jerome, was fully convinced. Apollinaris was an expert Hebraist and 
made large use in his Commentaries of the Ev. Naz., treating it as 
the actual original of Mt. But it was not till early in the fifth century, 
many years after the death of Apollinaris, that Jerome came forward 
with boastful claims to have discovered and translated the "original 
Hebrew " of Mt, dishonestly plagiarizing the work of earlier and vastly 
more reliable scholars. This was the beginning of the delusion. 

In spite of the bold words of Theodore of Mopsuestia denouncing 
as fraudulent Jerome's pretensions to have discovered "a fifth gospel" 

478 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 479 

the great influence of Jerome added to that of Apollinaris led to the 
marginal collation (in the so-called Zion group of Mss.) of variants to 
the readings of Mt. Many of these still display, the rubric TO 'Iot;5ai- 
K&V, that is "the Hebrew (Gospel)." By the use of these variants, 
along with other data, Schmidtke ("Judenchristliche Evangelien" 
in TU, 37, 1911) has at last determined beyond question the real 
nature of the work. The Ev. Naz. was an Aramaic targum of our 
own Greek Mt, doubtless of the same type as the "translations of the 
Gospel of John and of the Acts of the Apostles" which Epiphanius, 
Jerome's contemporary, learned from his Jewish convert Joseph were 
still in use among the Aramaic-speaking Christians of Tiberias in 
Galilee. Their case of books for reading in worship contained also 
the Aramaic Mt. 

We owe to Jerome an unquestioned debt for several considerable 
extracts (not translated by himself from the Aramaic, with which he 
was not familiar, but filched for the most part from Apollinaris, whose 
works had been condemned as heretical). We are his debtors also for 
the indirect service of causing later transcribers of Mt to add in the 
margin the variant readings of TO 'Iov8au<6v, thus enabling us to con- 
firm the statement of Epiphanius that the "Hebrew" Mt used by 
the Nazarenes was "complete," as against certain Ebionite gospels 
which rejected the Infancy chapters. Ev. Naz. was not only quite as 
"complete" as Mt but even more, for it added all sorts of corrections, 
embellishments, and edifying "improvements." These leave no 
question in the mind of critics that it was just such an Aramaic 
targum of Mt as we have described in the words of the converted 
Galilean Joseph, a "translation" of Mt into the vernacular. 

But however great our debt to Jerome for knowledge which he did 
not intend to convey, it is more than offset by the wrong impression 
he did intend to convey, bolstering it up by dishonest assertions of 
discovery and scholarly publication. One of the worst of these 
repeated acts of dishonesty was the appropriation from Origen as 
translations made by himself from the "Hebrew original" of Mt, of 
certain passages quoted by Origen from "the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews." This totally different composition, current in Egypt 
and Transjordan, a Greek gospel, not orthodox nor "complete" 
but Ebionite in type, making not Peter but James its supreme apos- 
tolic authority, and often nearer to L than to Mt in contents, Jerome 
absurdly identified with Ev. Naz., apparently because both were cited 
as Jewish, which was indeed the fact. 

Jerome not only appropriated from Origen the passages which the 
Alexandrian scholar had drawn from the Ev. Hebr. but declared them 
to have been translated by himself from the "original Hebrew Mat- 
thew." However, he inadvertently betrayed the plagiarism by in- 



480 APPENDED NOTES 

eluding together with the extract some of the context belonging to 
Origen himself. Exactly the same thing occurred again in an alleged 
citation from his "Hebrew" gospel which he filched from Ignatius. 
The fact should not surprise us because this method of composition 
was habitual with Jerome, who constantly professes to have personally 
read the extracts he borrows from his more industrious or better 
informed predecessor. 1 

The inclusion by Jerome among the extracts he professes to have 
made from the Ev. Naz. of extracts previously made by Origen from 
the Ev. Hebr. was a source of endless confusion to all subsequent 
scholars until the epoch-marking work of Schmidtke. At last we know 
that the two writings were totally diverse. Indeed it is highly probable 
that Jerome's first real acquaintance with the Ev. Naz. was a transient 
view of the copy obtained by Eusebius for the library at Caesarea. 
The view was necessarily superficial because of Jerome's ignorance 
of Aramaic. 

As against Zahn, who conjectured that Origen himself might have 
obtained this copy on one of his two visits from Caesarea to Bostra 
and Gerasa, Schmidtke makes it probable that Eusebius himself in 
his earlier writings had no access to the original, though on Zahn's 
view it would have formed part of his own library. Origen shows equal 
lack of acquaintance with it. Hence the long extract from Ev. Naz., 
ascribed to Ev. Hebr. in the Latin reworking of Origen' s Commentary 
on Mt, is drawn not from Origen 's but from Apollinaris' Commentary. 

As we have seen, the credit claimed by Jerome for the discovery of 
this monumental mare's nest is really due to Apollinaris of Laodicea. 
When Jerome, as yet ignorant even of Hebrew, arrived in Aniioch 
on his way to a five years' sojourn in the wilderness of Chalcis, near 
Berea-Aleppo, Apollinaris was the great expositor of the Hebrew 
Scriptures in the Antioch school and Jerome attended his lectures. 
Apollinaris' coming to Antioch from his Phrygian home (situated in 
plain sight of Hierapolis, the see of Papias) may, or may not, have 

1 Epiphanius has long enjoyed the reputation of the most blundering fool 
among the post-Nicene fathers. His contemporary Jerome has strong claims to 
be considered the most unscrupulous knave. Schmidtke has given careful and 
minute study to Jerome's methods in the fraud (such it was in the judgment 
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, another contemporary and the greatest exegete in 
the renowned school of historical criticism and exegesis at Antioch) of the al- 
leged "authentic Hebrew" of Mt. After further comparison of the more extended 
studies of von Sychowski (1894), Bernoulli (1895), and Griitzmacher (1901, 
'06, and '08), Schmidtke has this forcible opinion to express as to Jerome's literary 
methods: "He was one of the most shameless, most deceitful literary frauds 
and freebooters that ever lived. No book could be admitted to exist which he 
had not read, considered and excerpted, no important idea which he had not 
originated, no unusual discovery for which he did not claim credit. He even pre- 
tended knowledge of books which never existed." 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 481 

been partly due to Papias' references to a recently extant Hebrew 
original of Mt. At all events Apollinaris became the greatest Hebraist 
of his age, sojourned among the Aramaic-speaking Nazarenes of Berea 
and accepted their valuation of the Ev. Naz. Whether during his stay 
in the region of Chalcis from 374 to 379 A.D. Jerome ever actually saw 
a copy of the Ev. Naz. is open to doubt. It was not until more than 
twenty years after Apollinaris' works were proscribed as heretical, 
and indeed long after the death of the great Hebraist, that Jerome 
began to put forward his claims. Nearly all his citations from the 
Ev. Naz. are filched from the terse Commentary of Apollinaris. 

We must demur to Schmidtke's claim that Eusebius continued 
to give credence to the reports of second-century fathers of the survival 
of "the Hebrew Mt" among the Nazarenes, even after actual inspec- 
tion of the Ev. Naz. In spite of Schmidtke's argument (p. 56 f.) the 
two excerpts made in Eusebius' Theophania hardly warrant his 
inference. Indeed the form of citation seems to the present writer to 
indicate misgivings on Eusebius ' part rather than confirmation of his 
previously expressed beliefs. He must at least have recognized a wide 
margin of variation from the apostolic original. Apollinaris and 
Jerome should have full credit for their "discovery." 

The Alexandrian fathers have apparently as little knowledge of Ev. 
Naz. as Apollinaris or Jerome of the Ev. Hebr. While the two writings 
are probably not far apart in date of origin their area of circulation 
was different. Ev. Naz. was current in Aramaic-speaking Euphratean 
Syria, whose contacts were with Mesopotamia on the east and Antioch 
on the west. Ev. Hebr. circulated in Decapolis, where in all the princi- 
pal cities, including Bostra and Gerasa, the language had for cen- 
turies been Greek, this language becoming increasingly dominant as 
the policy of Trajan and Hadrian of strengthening the fortifications 
of the great trade-route from the Nile to the Euphrates valley led to 
more and more pronounced Hellenization. The contacts of Trans- 
jordan through which passed this extremely important artery of trade 
were all with Egypt. In fact the third legion, called Cyrenaica from its 
Egyptian recruiting ground, not only played a conspicuous part in the 
siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. but later adopted Bostra as its perma- 
nent headquarters. If, then, Origen did encounter in Bostra or Gerasa 
any Jewish-christian gospel (a theory which has no documentary 
support) it would naturally be the Greek Ev. Hebr. rather than the 
Aramaic Ev. Naz. 

The question of the origin and nature of the writing variously 
known as "The Gospel according to the Hebrews," the Ebionite 
"Matthew," and perhaps also "The Gospel according to the Twelve 
Apostles," is exceedingly complicated. If we provisionally limit our 
judgment to pre-Eusebian testimony, postponing the difficult and 



482 APPENDED NOTES 

dubious task of unravelling the twisted and unreliable strands of 
Epiphanius' fabric, the matter will be simplified. As before, Schmidtke 
will be our safest guide, though not without the exercise of personal 
judgment. 

As indicated in our text the earliest witness to the Ebionite writing 
is indirect. Eusebius tells us that it was employed by Hegesippus in 
his five books of Memoirs (c. 170), from which Eusebius drew his own 
full account of the life and death of James the Just. Hegesippus was 
of Jewish birth 2 but a believer of the "Catholic" school. His "Rem- 
iniscences" aimed to show the agreement of orthodox doctrine every- 
where with the teaching of the Apostles transmitted through their 
successors at Jerusalem. He described at great length the character 
and martyr fate of James, the choice of his successor Syrneon, the 
frustrated attempt of Thebuthis to secure the succession to himself, 
and the persecution under Domitian which had led to the sending 
to Rome of the two surviving members of Jesus' family, a certain 
James and Zoker (Zacharias), grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude. As 
harmless Galilean peasants these two survivors of the family were 
contemptuously dismissed by Domitian, but on their return (c. 90) 
were welcomed by the brethren as "witnesses and leaders." Hegesip- 
pus compared the doctrine of the church in Jerusalem, standard of 
orthodoxy in his time, with that of the churches of his period, espe- 
cially Corinth and Rome, and found no deviation. A safely guarded 
episcopal succession had excluded heresy. The church in Jerusalem 
remained "a pure virgin." 

Hegesippus wrote in Greek, but being of Jewish parentage could, 
and (as Eusebius explicitly testifies) did avail himself of Aramaic 
writings. 

He quotes (says Eusebius) from the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
and from the Syriac (that is, " Aramaic ") Gospel. He also makes some 
statements on his own account on the basis of the Hebrew speech, showing 
that he was a convert from Judaism. He also reports other things on the 
basis of unwritten Jewish (that is, Jewish-christian) tradition. 

The reference shows quite clearly that Ev. Naz., "the Aramaic gospel" 
and Ev. Hebr. were not the same. The former was at this time still 
known to Eusebius only by report. The Ev. Hebr. was not written in 
"Syriac," and was already known to Eusebius, as we shall see, by 
personal inspection. 

The two Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen, give actual 
extracts from the writing which they designate "The Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews." One of these, twice quoted by Clement with 
slight variation, occurs also with an equal degree of variation as logion 

2 The name is a Grecized form of "Joseph." 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 483 

II of the second collection of logia of Jesus found at Behneseh (Oxy- 
rhynchus) in the Fayoum. Clement reports this freely (Strom. II, ix, 
45, and again V, xiv, 96) as 

He that seeks will not cease till he find, 
Finding he will be amazed, 
By amazement he shall find kingly rule, 
And in his kingdom he shall find rest. 

The Oxyrhynchus logion, as restored in the text of Klostermann 
(Kleine Texte, 1910, p. 17) may be rendered: 

Jesus says: 

Let not the seeker cease until he find, 

And when he has found he will be amazed, 

And by amazement he shall find kingly rule, 

And having attained to kingly rule he shall find rest. 

Origen also gives an extract from it in two different writings (In 
Joh. torn. II, 12 and In Jer. horn. XV, 4). It relates to the Tempta- 
tion and reports Jesus' experience as corresponding to that of the 
prophet Ezekiel (Ez. 8:3). This Jewish-christian writing corrected 
the impression likely to be produced in minds unfamiliar with the 
midrashic style 3 by placing in Jesus' own mouth another version of 
Mt 4:8 as follows: 

Just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs and 
carried me away to the great mountain Tabor. 

These very early and undisputed fragments should suffice by 
themselves alone to prove that the Ebionite "gospel," while bearing 
some special relation of dependence to our own Greek Mt, was never- 
theless an entirely separate writing in the Greek language (though 
probably translated from Aramaic) known in Egypt c. 200 A.D., as 
belonging to "the Hebrews." The Stichometry of Nicephorus, a book- 
catalogue based on very ancient data, even gives its length in lines 
(ffTixoi). It contained 2,200 as against 1,950 for Jn and 2,480 for Mt. 
In Egypt it enjoyed sufficient reputation to be quoted by great ortho- 
dox writers such as Clement and Origen with a certain measure of 
respect, as though its statements, while not authoritative, might have 
a basis of truth, and even to have its logia excerpted in anthologies. 
It was also known in Palestine in the tune of Hegesippus (c. 170) 
and regarded there with sufficient favor to be employed by this 
great champion of orthodoxy. Another extract, clearly proved by 
Schmidtke to be Origen's, though known to us only through the 
plagiarism of Jerome, will show the characteristic which would espe- 

3 Cf. Origen, Clra. Cels. I, xliii f . 



484 APPENDED NOTES 

cially commend it to Hegesippus, a champion of apostolic succession 
through James the Just. Jerome's Latin rendering of the logion already 
cited from Origen (his pretense of having translated the Hebrew Mt 
"into Latin and Greek" contained the modicum of truth that he did 
render Origen's Greek, which he imagined to be translated from the 
"Hebrew," into Latin) is given as follows in his Comm. in Mich. 
at 7:6: 

Qui crediderit evangelic, quod secundum Hebraeos editum nuper trans- 
tulimus (!), in quo ex persona salvatoris dicitur: " modo tulit me mater 
mea, sanctus spiritus, in uno capillorum meorum," non dubitabit dicere 
sennonem dei ortum esse de spiritu. 

He gives in De viris ill. 2, something much more important. 

Evangelium quoque, quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos et a me nuper 
in Graecum sermonem Latinumque translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe 
utitur, post resurrectionem salvatoris refert: " dominus autem, cum de- 
disset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum et apparuit ei; juraverat 
enim Jacobus se non comesturum panem ab ilia hora, qua biberat calicem 
dominus, donee videret eum resurgentem a dormientibus," rursusque 
post paululum: " adferte, ait dominus, mensam et panem," statimque 
additur: " tulit panem et benedixit et fregit et dedit Jacobo Justo et dixit 
ei: frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit films hominis a dor- 
mientibus." 

Origen could hardly have chosen a passage better fitted to convey a 
definite idea of the community of Christians to whom this "gospel" 
belonged, of their relation to other Christian bodies, and particularly 
of the relation of their gospel, which our earliest witnesses speak of 
as "according to Matthew," to the canonical Gospel of that name. 

Let us note first of all the points of contact with Hegesippus. For 
Ebionites the supreme apostolic authority was "James the Just." 
To him (at Nazareth?) Jesus "went" (ivit), after refuting at Jerusa- 
lem the false assertions of his enemies. This appearance to James 
ignores any to Peter or any other of the disciples, and commits to 
James in solemn words of institution the sacrament which breaks 
the annual fast celebrating the Passion. James was the head of the 
Jerusalem succession, championed by, Hegesippus as supreme guard- 
ian of orthodoxy. The title "James the Just" employed here is other- 
wise known only through Hegesippus, who explains its origin, and 
Clement of Alexandria. Moreover in the fragment Jesus refers to 
himself as "the Son of Man," a phenomenon unknown outside of 
our Synoptic writers with one exception. Hegesippus, in his story 
of the martyrdom of "James the Just" relates James' "testimony" 
given "with a great voice" to the multitude assembled at Passover 
from "the pinnacle of the temple": 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 485 

Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He himself is 
sitting in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to 
come on the clouds of heaven. 

Dependence by Hegesippus on the Ebionite apokryphon for at 
least a part of his data concerning "James the Just" is put beyond 
dispute by the fact that the Jewish father's James is not only late 
and legendary, but typically and unmistakably an Ebionite. Hegesip- 
pus described him as follows: 

James the brother of the Lord succeeded to the government of the 
Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called " the Just " 
by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many 
that bore the name of James. He was consecrate from his mother's womb; 
and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came 
upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor did he use the bath. 

Moreover Hegesippus further maintained that James was a Chris- 
tian counterpart of the Jewish high priest (!) his intercession for the 
guilty city being alone effective, for the siege began "at once" when 
James was murdered. The passage in which Hegesippus relates this 
is continuous with that just cited, but clearly overlaps it, as might be 
expected if drawn from a source: 

He alone was permitted to enter into the Holy place; for he wore not 
woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone 
into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging for- 
giveness for the (Jewish) people, so that his knees became hard like those 
of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship 
of God, and asking forgiveness for the (Jewish) people. Because of his 
exceeding great justice he was called " the Just," and Oblias (dphel ( am) 
which signifies in Greek " Bulwark of the people," and " Justification " 
in accordance with what the prophets 4 declare concerning him. 

Epiphanius, whose use of the apokryphon will be discussed later, 
completes the picture of the high-priestly intercessor by declaring 
that James wore the golden petalon or high-priestly diadem. Sig- 
nificantly enough the same extraordinary claim is made on behalf of 
the Apostle John (also, according to primitive Asian tradition, a 
martyr) by Polycrates of Ephesus. The explanation is that Hegesip- 
pus, Polycrates, and Epiphanius have taken literally what originally 
was a figure of speech. 

From Hbr. 9:11 f. through a succession of early Christian writings 
martyrs are spoken of as "priests" because on account of their imme- 
diate resurrection (the "first" resurrection) they are able in heaven 

4 "The prophets" in question seem to be uncanonical, though Jer. 6:27 ia 
probably the starting point; but cf. Sap. 18:20-19:1, Syriac Apoc. of Baruch 
ii. 2 and Assumptio Mos. xi. 17. 



486 APPENDED NOTES 

to make intercession for sin. In Rev. 7:9-17 the glorified Christ is 
surrounded by a bodyguard of such "priests" (20:4-6) of whom the 
seer declares: 

These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed 
their robes and made them white (by participation) in the blood of the 
Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God; and they serve Him 
day and night in His temple. 

The Apocalypse of Peter relates how at the disciples' request Jesus 
grants them vision of "the justified" in paradise. After the usual 
description of their glorified appearance and abode Jesus explains 
(verse 20) "This is the place of your high priests, the men who have 
been justified." The intercession of the martyred James and John 
in paradise is clearly the starting point of the tradition of their 
priestly conduct and clothing with the high priest's insignia. The 
fathers who take it literally are merely perverting a very ancient poetic 
idea, whose emanation point was Jerusalem. Of its bearing on the 
question now before us more hereafter. 

Eusebius follows next in date after Origen. His testimony is of 
especial value because he had what he also calls "the Gospel accord- 
ing to the Hebrews" before him and studied its contents. I cannot 
agree with Schmidtke that Eusebius held the erroneous belief that 
Papias had used Ev. Hebr. for his story of "a woman accused of 
many sins before the Lord;" for while there can be little doubt that 
the story is the same introduced by Western texts as Jn 7:53-8:11, 
and while Eusebius does mention the fact that it also occurs in Ev. 
Hebr., doubtless in fulfilment of his promise to note such employ- 
ments, his carefully chosen language indicates uncertainty rather 
than certainty. The form which he found in Papias was no doubt (as 
Schmidtke notes, and as had previously been argued by myself 5 ), 
substantially that of the Armenian Edschmiadzin codex which begins: 

A certain woman was taken in sins, against whom all bore witness that 
she was deserving of death. They brought her to Jesus, etc. 

It is most likely because of the wide variation of this Asian form of 
the story from that which he found in Ev. Hebr. that Eusebius avoids 
committing himself to the (erroneous) idea that Papias used the work, 
and merely reports that the same story (substantially) could also be 
found (r\v 7repix) in Ev. Hebr. 

The pericope adulterae is attached by nearly all texts which con- 
tain it to Jn, either as an addendum at the end, or somewhere in the 
context of Jn 7:36-8:20." This form is certainly earlier and more au- 

5 Expositor, LXIII (March, 1905), "Papias and the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews." 

6 See Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 156. 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 487 

thentic than the Armenian. We may be sure it was appended to the 
Gospels, or inserted in them by scribes for the same reason as led to 
the incorporation of readings from rb 'lovbauibv, viz., the belief that it 
represented the "original." 

But why was it attached to Jn? Why not to Mt, or after Lk 21 :37 f ., 
where it is placed by a small group of Calabrian Mss. called Ferrariani, 
a group which also display the 'IouScuK6v variants? 

We can agree with either that group of critics who hold that the 
story was attached to Jn because Papias had given it as one of his 
"traditions of John" (Trapadocras Icodwou), or with those who hold 
(with Schmidtke) that Papias referred to no written source. The one 
thing fairly certain about its placing is that whether in Lk 21 or Jn 7 
the location was not a mere conjecture but corresponded to its placing 
in Ev. Hebr. A comparison of the opening words of the story with 
Lk 21:37 f. will show that there is real literary connection. Lk 
omitted the story, which probably formed part of his L source, but 
kept the framework. Scribes who sought for it a place in Jn were 
guided by Jn 8:20 which agreed with Lk 21:1, 37 f. in locating Jesus 
"in the treasury;" for the "other" story with which this formed a 
pair (Euseb.) was the story of the Widow's Mites, located according 
to Lk 21:1-4 "in the treasury." Our conjecture is that in Ev. Hebr., 
which has points of contact with L, the two anecdotes stood together, 
and that they were related as utterances of the Apostle John. Reasons 
will appear later. 

From the foregoing references, comprising all that the second, 
third, and fourth centuries can tell regarding Ev. Hebr., certain meager 
yet important results already appear. The Ebionite apokryphon was 
clearly dependent on Mt and probably on Lk as well. It was thor- 
oughly Jewish-christian in the sense of representing the original 
church at Jerusalem. It centered upon James the Just, primate of 
the Church, high priest of the new Israel, repudiating Paul. It re- 
flected the intense loyalty of this church to the Law (Acts 21 :20) and 
its expectation of a prompt coming of "the Son of Man" to occupy 
the throne of David. The leader of the Twelve Apostles was "John." 
Peter and Andrew came third and fourth in the list. No traces of 
Gnostic heresy appeared in it, else it could not have been treated 
with even moderate respect by Hegesippus, Clement, and Origen. 

The point of special interest for our present enquiry is the curious 
intermingling of material relating to James as head of this mother- 
church of Christianity, a leader whose Christian career could not be 
dated within the period of Jesus' earthly life, with material drawn 
from Mt and Lk, if not Mk also, and combined with agrapha probably 
associated with the names of individual members of the Twelve. 
An explanation of this as well as of a number of other perplexities 



488 APPENDED NOTES 

may be derived from certain extracts which Epiphanius seems to 
have drawn from the work when a copy had finally reached him 
(perhaps from the Ebionite colony in Cyprus near his own residence 
at Constanza), after previously having formulated his views on the 
mistaken basis of the Clementina. The almost hopeless tangle this 
"worst blunderer of antiquity" made of his description of the Ebio- 
nites is unravelled with extraordinary skill by Schmidtke, from whom 
we shall borrow certain results which appear well founded, while 
venturing to dissent as regards others. Let the dissent be first frankly 
expressed, even if argument be excluded through space restriction. 

Schmidtke strongly disapproves the identification made by Hilgen- 
feld, Handmann, Zahn, and Harnack between the Ebionite apokry- 
phon and an unknown writing which Origen dismisses along with the 
so-called "Gospel according to the Egyptians" as current under 
the title "Gospel of the Twelve" (t-myeypaw&ov TflN AfiAEKA). 
This seems to Schmidtke to evince less respect than Origen would 
naturally show for a writing which in his Comments on Jn he quotes 
by the designation "Gospel according to the Hebrews." Schmidtke 
also objects that the writing superscribed "Of the Twelve" is prop- 
erly to be identified with that current in the time of Ephraem Syrus 
(360-373) under the name of a certain Kukaja. According to Maruta, 
Syrian bishop of Maipherqat c. 400, the Kukaie "construct for 
themselves twelve evangelists with the names of the twelve apostles." 
We have here a late but undoubted trace of the Ebionite apokryphon, 
if indeed the name of the sect itself be not a corruption from Kokaba, 
the original seat of the Ebionites in Transjordan. But the Kukaie, 
according to Theodore bar Kuni (c. 800) held a corrupt type of Gnos- 
tic syncretism remote from the simple christianized Judaism of the 
Ebionites. Schmidtke will not allow that the Ebionite apokryphon 
could have been thus corrupted. 

For these two reasons Schmidtke rejects as fabulous certain state- 
ments of Epiphanius tending to show that the Ebionites had but a 
single sacred writing which was (by outsiders) variously designated 
as "According to Matthew," "According to the Twelve Apostles," 
or (from its possessors) "According to the Hebrews." We may take 
up first the statements which Schmidtke rejects to observe later 
whether they are in any measure supported by those which he admits 
to be reliable. 

In his Panarion (Haer. 30:16) Epiphanius has this to say about 
the writings current among the Ebionites: 

They have other Acts which they call those of the apostles, among 
which are many things filled with their impiety whence they have inci- 
dentally supplied themselves with arms against the truth. For they set 
forth certain Ascents and Instructions forsooth in the Ascents of James, 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 489 

representing him as holding forth against both temple and sacrifices, and 
against the fire on the altar, and many other things filled with empty 
talk, so that they are not ashamed in them even to denounce Paul in 
certain invented utterances of the malignant and deceitful work of their 
false apostles. 



The Ascents (or "Steps") of James ('AvafiaQnol 'lawi/itou) here 
referred to is traceable in the Clementina (Rec. I, 66-71). The section 
is justly recognized by Epiphanius as a product of Ebionite hatred of 
Paul. It related how James, accompanied by the Twelve Apostles and 
the whole church, mounted for seven successive days the highest 
steps (ava0a.6ij.oi) of the temple, and there, disputing with Caiaphas, 
taught so convincingly that both high priest and people were ready 
for immediate acceptance of baptism. At the last moment, however, 
"the enemy" (Paul) intervened and stirred up the people against 
James and the apostles. He seized a firebrand from the altar, started 
a great massacre, and with his own hands flung down James from the 
top of the temple stairs. 

In the form presented in the Clementina these Ascents of James are 
incomplete. They have been shorn of the polemic explicitly referred 
to by Epiphanius against temple, altar, and altar-fires. Schmidtke is 
probably right in assuming that the words "sed et de baptismate cum 
aliquanta dixisset " (Rec. I, 69) replace an argument conducted along 
the lines of Rec. I, 39, 48 that Jesus has superseded sacrifices by bap- 
tism and through its grace has extinguished the fires kindled on the 
altar by the high priest to atone for sins. We may probably ascribe to 
this polemic of James against Caiaphas the word which the Ebionites 
(according to Epiphanius) placed on the lips of Jesus in "what they 
call a gospel:" 

I came to abolish sacrificing, and if ye cease not from sacrificing wrath 
shall not cease from you. 

There is also reason to hold that these "disputations of the twelve 
apostles in the temple" were prefaced by James's appeal to them to 
tell their experience when he received the challenge to debate from 
the high priest (Rec. I, 44). As Schmidtke views the matter the con- 
ception of the Twelve Apostles on seven successive days debating 
against the seven sects of Judaism was suggested to the writer of the 
Clementina by the story given by Hegesippus of the martyrdom of 
James, in which the martyr, before being summoned by the scribes 
and Pharisees to speak to the people from the pinnacle of the temple 
at Passover, had publicly disputed against these seven sects. 

But we have already seen that Eusebius reports Hegesippus as 
using the Ev. Hebr. (HE, IV, xxii. 8). Priority is therefore on its side. 
We have also seen that the A scents of James known to Epiphanius 



490 APPENDED NOTES 

was earlier than the Clementine romance, a writing of c. 210 which 
elaborates the theme with Peter as the hero. Must not even that 
very early writing which Irenaeus tells us was called "According to 
Matthew" and was alone current among the Ebionites have contained 
something corresponding to the A scents of James with its glorification 
of James as supreme leader of the Church and its venomous attack 
upon Paul? May not the reference to its readers as "repudiating the 
Apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the Law," be due to this 
same attack? 

The objection is, of course, that the Ev. Hebr. was a brief writing, 
midway in length between Mt and Jn. Also that while later than Mt 
and Lk and dependent on them it was early enough to have retained 
a certain amount of genuine tradition from the apostolic body in 
Jerusalem, too early to have become deeply corrupted by the stream 
of Elkesaite and syncretistic Gnosticism. The question with which 
the enquirer for the origin of the title "According to Matthew" is 
concerned is whether those testimonies which from the very earliest 
times explicitly declare that the Ebionite apokryphon was called 
by some "According to Matthew," by others "the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews," by others still "the Gospel of the Twelve" can 
be reduced to a unity consistent with itself as well as with the known 
facts. 

First of all it is quite apparent that a single writing of the length 
and character described cannot have contained the mass of late, leg- 
endary, and syncretistic material found by Epiphanius in use among 
the Ebionites of his time according to the following statement. (Haer. 
30:23): 

They pretend to have received the names of the apostles for the per- 
suasion of their dupes, and have composed fictitious books under their 
names, under the mask, forsooth, of James and Matthew and other dis- 
ciples, among which names they even include that of the Apostle John, 
in order that their insanity may betray itself from every side; for he (John) 
convicts them in every way. 

We recognize at once the A scents of James as the first exhibit under 
this indictment, and also the title "According to Matthew." It is 
remarkable, however, that Epiphanius does not stop there but in- 
cludes other apostles as introduced by name, specifically mentioning 
the Apostle John. Doubtless the "books" spoken of by Epiphanius 
(if he had any direct knowledge of them) will have stood as toward 
the primitive apokryphon in somewhat the same relation as the 
apostolic disputes of the Clementina. But whatever discounts should 
be made from the late and suspicious testimony of Epiphanius it is 
surely remarkable that he not only declares explicitly that the gospel 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 491 

used by these Ebionites was the Ev. Hebr., which was "named Accord- 
ing to Matthew" although "garbled and mutilated," but that he 
specifies as the three apostolic names here misemployed just those 
three which we have particular reason to believe were indeed put 
forward in the Ev. Hebr. As regards James the Just and Matthew the 
reason is already apparent. 7 As regards the Apostle John, we have 
seen ground to believe that the reason the story of the Woman taken 
in Adultery (found by Eusebius in Ev. Hebr.} occupies the places 
chosen for it by transcribers of the canonical Gospels is the fact 
that in the Ev. Hebr. it was presented as a story related by the Apostle 
John. 

But it is time that we turned from these admittedly dubious re- 
ports of Epiphanius to those which even Schmidtke admits to be 
based on real knowledge. The passage quoted hi Chapter III (p. 44) 
is one of these. It is obviously based on Synoptic story, though it 
employs a late designation for the Sea of Gennesaret (cf. Jn 6:1 and 
21 :1) and in its description of the Baptist's food at the close makes 
verbal changes ("locusts" aKpides, to "oil-cakes" ey/cptSes) to meet 
the vegetarian rule of the Ebionites. Two more admittedly authentic 
extracts will help us to form a judgment regarding the perplexing 
composition. 

In Haer. 30:13 Epiphanius gives a long extract from its "begin- 
ning": 

The beginning of the gospel current among them runs, " It came to 
pass in the days of Herod king of Judea that John came baptizing a bap- 
tism of repentance in the River Jordan, a man said to be a descendant of 
Aaron the priest, child of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went forth 
unto him." 

Epiphanius repeats this freely in 30:14. He continues his statement 
in 30:13 as follows: 

And after saying a good many things he adds: " And when the people 
had been baptized Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And when 
he had come up from the water the heavens were opened and he saw the 
Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending and entering into him. And 
there came a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my Son, the Beloved; 
my choice was fixed upon thee. And again, Today have I begotten thee. 
And immediately a great light shone round about the place. And John, 
when he saw it, saith unto him, Who art thou, Lord? And again there 
came a voice from heaven to him, This is my Son, the Beloved, on whom 
my choice was fixed. Thereupon (it says) John, doing him obeisance, said, 
I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he prevented him saying, 
Suffer it, for thus it is fitting to fulfill all things. 

7 Above, p. 44. 



492 APPENDED NOTES 

A little further on (Haer. 30:16) Epiphanius reports the Ebionite 
writing "called a gospel" to have contained the logion already cited 
(p. 489), "I came to abolish sacrificing," etc., and hi 30:22 quotes its 
parallel to Lk 22:15 as follows: 

They have changed the utterance and have represented the disciples as 
saying, "Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?" 
and him, forsooth, as saying, "Not with desire for flesh have I desired to 
eat this Passover with you." 

Obviously, so far as extent is concerned, the writing was indeed a 
"gospel," or more exactly a Synopticon, covering the apostolic tradi- 
tion from the baptism to the cross as defined in Acts 1 :22 and 10 :37-42. 
It cut off the infancy chapters including the (mutually irreconcilable) 
genealogies, as Epiphanius complains (Haer. 30:14), but much of the 
space thus saved was wasted in crude attempts to combine and 
harmonize Mt and Lk. How, then, was it possible to include in its 
narrow compass of 2,200 lines an extended account of the resurrection 
appearance to James (cf. I Cor. 15:7) and in addition false Acts of the 
Apostles, reporting as from Matthew and other disciples, including 
the Apostle John, sayings and doings of the Lord? 

This question looks to the entire plan and make-up of the writing. 
To answer it we must employ not only the meager data supplied by 
the extant fragments and references, but a historic imagination 
which can put itself in the situation of a convinced Ebionite deter- 
mined to vindicate the beliefs and traditions of this group of "zealots 
for the Law " (Acts 21 :20) . These, as we know, rallied to the standard 
of "James the Just" and not only rejected Paul, but regarded even 
the compromise of Peter at Antioch as "weak." What would a fol- 
lower of James and the Twelve naturally have to say to make good 
the position of his church, in days when Synoptic tradition starting 
at Rome with "Reminiscences of Peter" had swept all before it in 
northern Syria by means of two independent combinations of Mk 
with S? 

Obviously the tradition of the public ministry already current 
under the name of Peter could not be contradicted under the name of 
James. The most that could be done would be to repeat its general 
outline with occasional modification in the direction of Ebionism, and 
some harmonization to meet criticisms from the Jewish Synagogue. 
The only possible way to make room for Jacobean tradition was to 
append, at the point left open by Lk, an apostolic commission to "Israel" 
delivered by the risen Christ to James and the Twelve, in short another 
version of the Acts of the Apostles, in which not Peter, as in Lk's 
second "treatise," delivers the message but James and the Twelve. 

This is exactly the significance of the most important, reliable, and 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 493 

characteristic of all the fragments, the statement by Origen of how 
Jesus appeared after the resurrection to his brother James, instituting 
as the center of Christian ritual that new Passover to which the words 
of Lk 22:15 (in Ebionite version) had looked forward. Not Peter, 
who in two extant fragments (here and in the list of the Twelve) is 
subordinated, but James, is here made the foundation of the Church, 
a believer whose indomitable faith, unshaken by the despair of the 
rest, is rewarded by the first appearance of the risen Lord. The story 
of Mt 26:47-51; 27:57-60, 62-66; 28:11-15 is presupposed; but a new 
continuation is furnished departing as widely from Mt's brief account 
of the Apostolic Commission given in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20) as from 
Lk's story in Acts. 

The evidence, such as it is, from the Ascents of James and the 
Clementina is strongly corroborated by what we learn from independ- 
ent sources of the further course of the story. In Fragment 16 8 
(Schmidtke, p. 35) the speaker is manifestly James. He appears to be 
haranguing a mixed multitude ignorant of the story of Jesus, for 
they require to be told even the Redeemer's name as well as the 
opening scenes of his career, which had been already given in Frag- 
ment 15. In short James performs exactly the functions of Peter in 
Acts 1:12-2:40 and 10:36-43. The dependence of the Ebionite writer 
on Acts is made certain by his repetition of the list of the Twelve 
(including Judas Iscariot), just as Lk repeats it in Acts 1:13 f., but 
with substitution of "Matthew" (on the basis of Mt 9:9) in place of 
"Matthias" of Acts 1:23-26. 

The further functions of "Peter and John" in Acts 3-5 are contin- 
ued by James in what we have learned from Epiphanius' report of 
the A scents of James concerning the further course of the story. 
Instead of the voiceless John who merely shadows Peter in Luke's 
story the author of the Ebionite "Acts" gave James the support of 
the whole apostolic group, probably naming John first, seeing he, 
with his brother James, heads the list in Fragment 16. This was of 
course necessary since the Twelve, and not James, had been Jesus' 
followers in Galilee. They had in fact been named by the Lord as his 
"witnesses to Israel." This structure of the apokryphon entailed 
that curious repetition which we note in the Fragments (cf. Fragments 
15, 16, and 17), as the successive pairs of apostles offered their "wit- 
ness"; but it served the important end of voicing those "traditions 
of the Elders" which Jerusalem early in the second century could 
still report (cf. Irenaeus, Haer. V, xxxiii. 3) attaching them to the names 
of individual apostles, specifically naming "John" and "Matthew," 
but not forgetting "Judas Iscariot" (Papias, Frgts. 3 and 12). 
The particular tradition of the Apostles which Irenaeus gives in 
8 Quoted in our text, above, p. 44. 



494 APPENDED NOTES 

the passage above referred to is given explicitly as derived from 
"Papias," who gave it as a story related by "John the disciple of the 
Lord" transmitted by "the (Jerusalem) elders." It is at least a 
remarkable coincidence that Eusebius found another story concern- 
ing "a woman accused of many sins before the Lord" likewise re- 
lated by Papias, but which was also "contained in the Ev. Hebr." 
a story which from its attachment in nearly all our Mss. to the fourth 
Gospel was probably given there also as related by the Apostle John. 

It is needless for our present purposes to pursue further these 
evidences that the Ebionite "gospel" did unite certain "acts of 
individual apostles" to its story of "the things that Jesus began to 
do and to teach." For an Ebionite writer of the age following the 
appearance of the Synoptic Gospels (including Acts) it was desirable 
to recast the story with certain harmonizations and adaptations. 
He would naturally "cut off the genealogies of Matthew" and restore 
the "beginning of the gospel" as it had been in Mk and hi Petrine 
tradition (Acts 1:22; 10:37). Epiphanius informs us that he did so 
(Haer. 30:14). He would also naturally introduce changes to accom- 
modate the statements of Mt and Lk to Ebionite vegetarianism and 
asceticism. The Fragments 16 and 19 show how he avoided the 
representation that either John or Jesus tasted flesh, Fragment 19 
(this, however, coming more probably from the argument of James 
against the high priest) his polemic against sacrifice. Fragment 23 
shows that Mt's account of the resurrection was felt to be still in 
need of re-enforcement. 

But if Synoptic gospel tradition could be thought in need of im- 
provement much more its sequel in Lk's second "treatise." Canoni- 
cal Acts made the writing of "new Acts of the Apostles" an absolute 
necessity if Ebionite views were to stand. We need not assume, of 
course, that everything which Epiphanius found in his Ascents of 
James already formed part of the Ev. Hebr. Subsequent enlargements, 
including Gnostic versions such as the Gospel of Judas Thomas, or 
the Leucian Acts of John and other apostles, may well have seen the 
light between the Ebionite evangelist and Epiphanius. But Frag- 
ment 23 (Origen), with what may be inferred from the Clementina, 
from Epiphanius, and from the other data already cited, is enough to 
make it highly probable that the chief aim of the Ev. Hebr. was to 
meet the representation of Acts 1-15, where Peter is made both 
founder and leader of the Church, with another in better accord with 
Ebionite views. 

As conceived by the Ebionites this entire development belonged 
properly to James and the original Twelve, the work of Paul being 
purely and simply that of an "enemy," a "renegade and apostate 
from the Law." Both parts of such a revised Lk-Acts might easily 



MT AND THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GOSPELS 495 

be comprised within the compass of 2,200 stichoi Moreover Ebio- 
nites of 100-115 might well accept this as "the" Gospel, Alexandrians 
who became acquainted with it might easily designate it "The 
Gospel according to the Hebrews," excerpting some of its alleged 
logia. Even its legendary portrait of James the Just might have 
value in the eyes of Hegesippus and Origen in spite of its "venom- 
ous words against Paul." Why it might be christened in other quar- 
ters "According to the Twelve" or "According to Matthew" in 
days when no such claim had as yet been voiced for its canonical 
predecessor, we have already made clear. At least the title "Accord- 
ing to Matthew" would appear to fit the apokryphon exactly. The 
canonical Mt it does not fit at all. 9 
9 See further Appended Note X. 



APPENDED NOTE VII 
MATTHEAN GREEK AND THE N FACTOR 

OUR discussion of Scripture Quotations in S (Appended Note V) 
will have established the fact that the Hebraic factor which dis- 
tinguishes the Greek of this Gospel is largely borrowed. Whether 
derived from some lost collection of testimonia or some annotated or 
targumistically expanded version of Mk its limited group of quota- 
tions based on the Hebrew text, quotations which have been appealed 
to since Jerome's day as proof that the work is as a whole a Greek 
rendering of the Aramaic writing of the Apostle Matthew, prove 
nothing of the kind. On the contrary the compiler of the work makes 
our own Greek Mk his almost exclusive dependence for his story, adds 
to this as his next most important source a compilation of the dis- 
courses of Jesus which, whatever its original language, was a Greek 
document when drawn upon in common by Mt and Lk, and in ad- 
dition when quoting from the Old Testament on his own account uses 
uniformly the LXX version. Even when adding to a borrowed quota- 
tion which itself rests upon the Hebrew, as in Mt 12:17-20, the exten- 
sion (verse 21) is taken from the LXX. This proves beyond reasona- 
ble doubt that the evangelist's own language, at least for literary 
purposes, was the same as that of the readers for whom he prepared 
the work, viz., Greek. 

Nevertheless the Greek current in various localities of the Near 
East at successive periods and among different social groups has 
different characteristics. Both Lk and Mt improve upon the less 
refined Greek of Mk, both with a pronounced Jewish coloration, yet 
not the same. The Greek of Philo, Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, 
differs from that of Josephus, his later Palestinian contemporary. 
Nay, Josephus differs from himself, his earlier volume on the Jewish 
War, which had the advantage of revision by Greek rhetoricians 
(Ctr. Apion i. 9), being noticeably of better style than the later works 
prepared with less apparent dependence on such aid. 

Much attention has therefore been given by critics and philologians 
to the distinctive Greek of Mt, most recently and systematically of all 
by A. Schlatter of Tubingen in his belated attempt to rescue the 
Tubingen theory of the priority of this Gospel. For Schlatter regards 
the Gospel as a Palestinian writing composed by the Apostle himself 
before the fall of Jerusalem. A copy of Schlatter 's work entitled 

496 



MATTHEAN GREEK AND THE N FACTOR 497 

Der Evangelist Matthaus; seine Sprache, sein Ziel, seine Selbstandigkeit 
(Stuttgart, 1929), was secured by the present writer after his own work 
had already been sent to the printer, but not too late for attention 
in this and other Notes. 

Schlatter holds that not only Matthew the Apostle but the rabbis 
of Palestine and the Palestinian church as well used Greek inter- 
changeably with Aramaic, or even by preference, so that while 
Aramaic might be referred to in Acts 1:19 as "their language," 
and Josephus in his account of the siege of Jerusalem hi 68-70 could 
repeatedly refer to Aramaic as the language of its inhabitants, a 
Gospel intended for more than local circulation might reasonably be 
composed in Greek. It is true that Claudius Lysias, the centurion who 
rescued Paul from the temple mob (Acts 21 :37-40) expressed surprise 
that Paul is able to speak Greek, but in Schlatter ; s opinion Claudius 
Lysias did not appreciate the level of culture to which the Jerusalem 
church had now attained, nor the large proportion of Hellenistic 
Jews among its members. 

Schlatter 's evidence is drawn from a minute comparison of every 
clause of the Gospel from beginning to end with corresponding clauses 
of Josephus and from the Talmud. It becomes easily apparent that it 
is the Talmud, more especially the Babylonian Talmud, with which 
the Greek of Mt stands in closest affinity. Its Greek is exactly de- 
scribed in the term coined by R. Simon, Grec de la Synagogue. For 
not even Schlatter will venture in these days to claim an Aramaic 
original for Mt after the manner of Papias and his patristic satellites. 
Translation of the work as a whole is inadmissible for reasons already 
presented. But the evangelist, Hellenist in speech though he be, is 
certainly deeply imbued both with the spirit and the mode of expres- 
sion of the rabbis. 

What, then, is this school of rabbinic Judaism which has become so 
thoroughly Hellenized as to use by preference the Greek text of the 
Old Testament and show no further influence of Jewish origin than 
in the structure of sentences and choice of words? Should we look to 
Jerusalem as the birthplace of "Synagogue Greek" or to regions far- 
ther to the north and east? 

It should be observed that the prejudice against Aramaic, which led 
the Palestinian Synagogue to forbid its use for some of the most sacred 
purposes and to employ as much as possible the original Hebrew, 
much as the Roman church today insists on the liturgical use of 
Latin, did not extend to Greek, the language of the civilized and 
cultured world. Greek translations of all the Scriptures had long 
since become indispensable. Greek-speaking Jews employed them in 
the Hellenistic cities of Palestine itself. Even the Shema was recited 
in Greek in at least one synagogue of Caesarea Palestina, a half- 



498 APPENDED NOTES 

Jewish half-Syrian city, without serious objection from Jerusalem. 
The famous rabbinic family of Gamaliel was noted for its acquaint- 
ance with Greek literature. How much can be said for the possibility 
of a converted rabbi in Jerusalem using Greek as the medium in which 
to compose a Gospel may be seen by careful perusal of the opening 
section of Zahn's great Introduction. We must assume in that case, 
however, that the circle of readers for whom it was intended was not 
the mass of the population, with whom at the siege Titus could only 
communicate through an interpreter who spoke "their language," 
viz., Aramaic. 

Conditions were not dissimilar in the districts inhabited by the 
Jews "from Mesopotamia" referred to in Acts 2:9. This was prob- 
ably the larger and wealthier if not also the more influential branch 
of post-exilic Judaism. In the period of which we are speaking (40-95 
A.D.) it had obtained the splendid accession of the royal family of 
Adiabene by missionary activity exerted both from lower Babylonia 
and from Palestine. The Babylonian Talmud remains as the per- 
manent memorial of this eastern branch of Judaism. As in Palestine, 
Hebrew, though no longer a living language, was cultivated by the 
rabbis, while Aramaic in various dialects remained the language of 
the multitude. However in the centers of Seleucid culture Greek 
continued for centuries to be the official language, as the coinage of 
the cities shows. 

The region of Osrhoene, whose capital was Edessa, in the western- 
most bend of the Euphrates, is typical of the conditions which might 
be expected to give rise toward the close of the first Christian century 
to such a writing as Mt. The Gospel is composed in "Synagogue 
Greek," a type developed where populations of Jewish religion and 
descent were large, as in Euphratean Syria, where Greek culture still 
disputed the ground with Aramaic, and Syriac had not yet become 
the vehicle of Christian literature. 

The Dialogues of Lucian, written at Samosata, capital of Com- 
magene, in the latter half of the second century, exhibit the best 
Greek style since the classic period, and could not have become cur- 
rent without a considerable Greek-speaking population in this region, 
which bordered Osrhoene on the north. In fact Samosata lay but 
twenty miles to the north of Edessa on the Euphrates. Greek could 
certainly not have ceased to be the literary language of Edessa before 
100 A.D. It was probably even the vernacular there for some decades 
later. 

Next to Antioch Edessa was perhaps the oldest seat of Christianity 
in northern Syria. The Jewish population of the region offered an 
inviting mission field for evangelists from the western seaport and 
was doubtless largely Greek-speaking. Only the legend of King Abgar 



MATTHEAN GREEK AND THE N FACTOR 499 

serves to carry back its christianization beyond the opening of the 
second century, but influences from Antioch, bringing to Edessa the 
Roman Gospel of Mk and the S collection of the discourses of Jesus, 
would meet there a certain inheritance of Jewish tradition emanating 
not so much from Jerusalem as from Adiabene and the fertile plain 
of northern Arabia. Here "in the plains of Syria and all its cities" as 
far as Nisibis, where the wandering bishop Abercius found Christian 
entertainment in the latter part of the second century, believing him- 
self to be "following the footsteps of Paul," perhaps alluding to the 
celebrated pool of Edessa with its sacred fish in his cryptic reference to 
"fish from the spring, gigantic, pure, which a holy virgin had caught" 
as the "food which faith set before him hi all places," we may reason- 
ably look for the conditions which could give rise to a writing in 
"Synagogue Greek" of the nature of Mt. 

The elaborate and minute study of Schlatter merely confirms the 
verdict of many competent scholars much earlier pronounced. In 
the language of Allen (ICC, p. Ixxxv) : 

The Greek of the Gospel is not so full of Aramaisms and of harsh con- 
structions due to translation from Aramaic as is the Greek of the second 
Gospel. Nor, on the other hand has it the Septuagintal and, so, Hebraic 
ring of the language of the third Gospel. It has rather the lack of distinc- 
tion which characterizes any narrative compiled from previous sources by 
an editor who contents himself with dovetailing together rather than re- 
writing the sources before him. 

The Hebraizing factor in Mt includes a further element besides 
the Semiticized Greek style. This consists of material borrowings of 
which the group of quotations based on the Hebrew Old Testament 
offer a conspicuous example. In our fifth Appended Note it has 
been shown that these cannot be drawn by the evangelist from his own 
knowledge of the Scriptures since he mistakes in several instances 
their derivation and in general uses not the Hebrew but the Greek 
text when quoting on his own account. It is also noteworthy to how 
disproportionately great an extent these proof-texts from the Hebrew 
are attached to (or indeed form the basis of) anecdotes typically 
rabbinic in their whole character. The stories of Jesus' birth and 
infancy in the Preamble, the Petrine Supplements of Book IV, and 
the apocryphal additions to the Epilogue have a character of their own 
besides the dependence of their Scripture quotations on the Hebrew 
text which justifies that treatment as a special class of material which 
they have received at the hands of many critics. For reasons already 
stated the designation N (Nazarene) has been applied to the group in 
the present work. 

The question whether this N material should be regarded as com- 



500 APPENDED NOTES 

posed by the evangelist himself (R), though not, of course, without 
some employment of oral tradition, or as representing some written 
source incorporated by R without more drastic recasting than he has 
given, for example, to Mk, is not yet wholly settled. It is true that 
phraseology quite distinctive of R, such as the stereotyped formula 
introducing the proof-texts "that it might be fulfilled which was 
written" and the like, and the epithet "half -believer/' is found in N, 
proving that R is reproducing more or less in his own words; but on 
the other hand the use of the Hebrew text and the individual character 
of the supplements go to prove a unity independent of R. 

Burkitt, Harris, and Vacher Burch conceive this N material, 
particularly the quotations, to be derived from a collection of tes- 
timonia such as we know to have circulated in the second and third 
centuries, that is, proof-texts from Old Testament prophecy strung 
together for the convenience of preachers and writers of apologies. 
Others imagine a late expansion of the Markan record holding to it a 
relation not unlike that of Ev. Naz. to our own Mt. This theory would 
involve, of course, the same conception as Soltau 's of a double re- 
daction, with the difference that the work of R n would precede that of 
R and be taken up in it. 

Allen (p. liv.) divides the N element into incidents and quotations. 
The former include the stories of Jesus' birth and infancy (1:18-25; 
2:1-23) and two Petrine supplements (14:28-31 and 17:24-27). The 
third Petrine supplement (Blessing of Peter, 16:17-19), is otherwise 
grouped by Allen. 

Soltau (Unsere Evangelien, p. 55) gives the following as the narrative 
content of N: 

1. The Birth Stories, Mt 1-2. 

2. Three Petrine supplements; Walking on Sea, 14:28-31, 33, Blessing 

of Peter, 16:17-19, Temple-tax, 17:24-27. 

3. Celibacy, 19:10-12. 

4. Suicide of Judas, 27:3-10. 

5. Features of the Trial; Pilate 's Wife 's Dream, 27 :19, He Washes his 

hands of Guilt, 27:24f., He Appoints a Guard for the Tomb, 
27:62-66; 28:12-15. 

6. Portents at Jesus' Death, 27:52 f. 

7. Appearance to Mary Magdalen, 28:9-11. 

8. Appearance to the Disciples in Galilee, 28:16-20. 

The quotations, called Reflexionscitate, are intermingled with these 
supplements and are, according to Soltau, of R's own finding. Except 
in the genealogy he has only oral tradition as a source. Allen 
(pp. Ix-lxii) concludes from a study of the quotations that it is "very 
unlikely" that they are due to the editor. The stories represent "a 
cycle of traditions," not "a document into which they had been 



MATTHEAN GREEK AND THE N FACTOR 501 

collected." The editor relies on the LXX, the stories on the Hebrew 
text. 

The difficulties in the way of supposing N to be the personal com- 
position of R are not small. Some have already been noted. Soltau J s 
theory requires us to believe in the currency of a Proto-Mt which 
enjoyed one, or even two decades of wide acceptance in the Greek- 
speaking Church, including employment by Lk (Unsere Evangelien, 
p. 81). But most inexplicably this broader, more universalistic form of 
Mt, characterized by better Greek no less than by greater antiquity 
and higher moral quality, was discarded by the Greek-speaking, Gentile 
Church in favor of the Hebraizing substitute, presumably for the sake 
of the few apocryphal supplements and the legendary and mid- 
rashic Preamble. This is hardly credible. It is true that the post- 
apostolic age witnessed the growth of Infancy gospels and apocryphal 
tales attaching specially to the Passion and Resurrection; but these 
did not displace the canonical, they only aimed to fill apparent gaps. 
Once the blend of Mk and S which Soltau posits as his Proto-Mt had 
attained such standing as he supposes, its disappearance without trace 
is highly improbable. 

Again it is admitted on both sides that N has a certain unity of 
substance as well as form, not enough in Allen 's opinion to warrant our 
speaking of it as a document, but only as a "cycle of traditions." 
Soltau, after an exhaustive study of its distinctive vocabulary, style 
and motive, is convinced that it represents a Jewish-christian milieu 
and late date. The explanation offered in the present Studies connects 
Reflexionscitate and rabbinic supplements under a single head. Like 
the "Synagogue Greek" of R they are derived from a Jewish-christian 
milieu of catholic sympathies like those of the Nazarenes of Aleppo. 

In some districts, as the Aramaic Gospels show, these communities 
retained their Semitic speech, in others they had employed the Greek 
language even before the invasion of Christianity, and of course 
continued to use it after their conversion and the circulation among 
them of the Gospel of Mk side by side with S in its Greek dress. The 
Gospel of Mk would of course be targumed in churches whose speech 
was Aramaic just as the Old Testament had been in days of Jewish 
faith, and these targums of Mk would be supplemented, whether in 
oral or written form, with just such explanatory and edifying expan- 
sions as the Jewish Targums exhibit. The proof that Mt itself under- 
went such a process is supplied by the extant fragments of Ev. Naz. 
Before the composition of Mt we may reasonably assume that in some 
districts of Osrhoene its predecessor Mk had received similar treat- 
ment. After the advent of first the Greek, then the Aramaic Mt the 
targumed Mk, so immeasurably inferior from the standpoint of that 
age, would inevitably disappear and be wholly forgotten. Neverthe- 



502 APPENDED NOTES 

less some of its more cherished elements, such as the birth stories, 
the apologetic supplements to the Markan account of finding the 
Empty Tomb, and the Scripture fulfilments, would survive. Taken 
up in oral or written form into the Greek Mt by a translation which 
did not wholly obliterate the dependence of their citations on the 
Hebrew text they would still be recognizable to critics possessing the 
Greek Mk as "parasitic," and that not upon the stem of Mt, to which 
they are now attached, but upon the stem of Mk. In Streeter 's words 
"they stand to Mk as the mistletoe to the oak." 

It is this same able critic who gives us (FG, p. 503) the following well- 
conceived account of Mt's additions to the Passion story, which as he 
notes have the same nature as the Petrine supplements of Book IV, 
being "embellishments of the Marcan account which presuppose Mk 
as their basis." 

It is noteworthy that not a single one of them looks like a genuine his- 
torical tradition; while some of them are clearly legendary, e.g., the tem- 
porary resurrection of saints in Jerusalem at the time of the Rending of 
the Veil, or Pilate's washing his hands before the multitude an action 
as probable in a Roman governor as in a British civil servant in India. 
The commonest device of the preacher or Sunday School teacher who 
wishes to bring an incident of Scripture vividly before the minds of his 
audience is to retell the story with little additions derived from his own 
imaginative reconstruction of the scene. This kind of thing was familiar 
to the Rabbis in the popular exposition of the Old Testament, so much 
so that it has a technical name, " Haggada." The additions which Mt 
makes to Mk's Story of the Passion are precisely analogous to the Rabbinic 
Haggada of Old Testament stories. It is improbable that the editor of 
Mt made them up himself; rather they represent the " happy thoughts " 
of a long series of preachers and teachers. Those which happened to 
" catch on " would be remembered; in the course of time their " Haggadic " 
origins would be forgotten and they would be accepted as authentic tradi- 
tions. But if this is so Mk must have been known in the Church where 
Mt wrote long enough to have become an established authority a docu- 
ment which preachers and teachers expounded by methods familiar in 
the exposition of Scripture. 

Streeter estimates the interval of time necessary for this develop- 
ment between the appearance of Mk and the composition of Mt at ten 
years as "an absolute minimum," while "twenty would be none too 
many." Fifteen would seem a reasonable estimate. For reasons de- 
tailed in our text we regard the region toward Euphratean Syria with 
its many Greek-speaking cities from Apamea to Samosata, a region to 
which Edessa with its very early Christianization would be central, as 
that to which we should look for the origin of Mt rather than Antioch 
as assumed by Streeter. 

Mt's dependence upon Mk is firmly established. Schlatter's hope- 



MATTHEAN GREEK AND THE N FACTOR 503 

less insistence upon the contrary relation is scarcely worthy the name 
of argument. Its effect upon any competent judge can only be that of 
Hengstenberg's apologetic for the Mosaic authorship of the Penta- 
teuch upon Colenso. We may take as an example Schlatter 's explana- 
tion (p. 462) of the oversight of Mt 14:12 in transcribing Mk 6:29 f. 
The story is introduced at verse 3 precisely as in Mk 6 :17 as a paren- 
thetic explanation of Herod's comment on hearing of the miracles of 
Jesus. Herod at some previous time not defined had beheaded John in 
prison. Mk thereupon digresses after his not infrequent manner to 
relate the tragedy. He drops entirely after this digression the thread of 
Herod and his attitude toward Jesus and resumes only with the sequel 
to the Mission of the Twelve which he had inserted between the 
account of Jesus ' Miracles and Herod 's Comment. The consequence 
is that the reader not sufficiently on his guard against Mk 's digressive 
style is apt to take the sequel to the Mission of the Twelve in Mk 6 :30 
as if it were the sequel to the Beheading of John. 

This is what actually happens in Mt's transcription. Forgetting 
that he had begun the story as a parenthesis Mt omits the closing 
and continues as if Jesus ' retirement to the lake-shore with the Twelve 
were the immediate consequence of the tragedy. Thus John's dis- 
ciples, who according to Mk 6:29 "came and took up his body and 
laid it in a tomb," become identified with Jesus' disciples, who accord- 
ing to the next verse "gathered together unto Jesus and reported to 
him all that they had done and taught." In Mt 14:12 this is all run 
together as follows: "And his (John's) disciples came near and took 
up his body and came and reported to Jesus." Then follows the 
retirement to the lake-shore. Schlatter has no further comment 
to make upon this transcriptional error than merely to remark that 
"Mk has removed the connection of the boat-journey into the wilder- 
ness with the execution of the Baptist." Mt's partial correction of 
Mk's historical inaccuracies regarding Herod's position and family 
is equally disregarded by Schlatter. 

This scholar's attempt to make the Petrine supplements of Mt 
14:28-33; 16:16b-19; 17:24-27, and 18:21 appear to be intentional 
omissions on the part of Mk is equally feeble. Schlatter treats these 
as a group on p. 470. Admitting that if 16:16b-19 stood alone it 
might be considered to be an attempted enhancement of the authority 
of Peter, Schlatter holds that as a group the passages cannot be so 
taken, and have been omitted by Mk as irrelevant or unflattering to 
the great apostle! 

After reasoning of this kind it is not surprising to find the evidences 
of Matthean revision in the story of the Rich Enquirer (19:16-30= 
Mk 10:17-31), Request of the Sons of Zebedee (20:20-28 = Mk 10: 
35-45), etc., and of supplementation in the Passion story either ig- 



504 APPENDED NOTES 

nored by Schlatter or unconvincingly explained away. We transcribe 
only his explanation of Mk's omission [sic] of the following group of 
episodes in P mt : Judas' Suicide (27:3-1 la), Pilate's Wife's Dream 
(27:19); Pilate's Washing his Hands (27:24 f.); the quotation of Ps. 
69:22 in 27:35; the Earthquake and temporary Resurrection (27:51b- 
53) and the Watch at the Sepulchre (27:62-66; 28:11-15). On p. 791 
Schlatter explains why these interesting proofs of the Passion and 
Resurrection fail to appear in Mk: 

All these passages have a common aim; they set forth the part taken 
by Jerusalem in the death of Jesus and lay bare its guilt. May not the 
same consideration account for their removal by Mk which induced him 
to pass over the sayings in condemnation of Pharisaism and the threaten- 
ing parables? But it is apparent that this material is not of later origin 
than Mk, that in Mk also Pilate makes two attempts to release Jesus rather 
than Barabbas although the warning from Pilate's wife is wanting in Mk; 
also that one of the witnesses who speaks in Jesus' behalf also appears in 
Mk, although this evangelist fails to make it clear how the centurion at 
the cross comes to his acknowledgment that Jesus is a Son of God. Mk 
says i8w on owws e&irvevo-ev (" seeing that he thus expired "), but noth- 
ing had been related to suggest divine sonship in any way unless we 
revert to the darkness which lasted till Jesus' death which is not included 
in Mk's arrangement of the sentence. We can understand, therefore, why 
Lk did not take over this clause of Mk without change. Lk 23:47 iSiw 8e 
o eKaTovTapxys TO yevo/ievov (" the centurion seeing what had happened ") 
restates Mt 27:54 and the confession 6Vru>s 6 avfywTros OUTOS Sucaios rfv 
(" truly this was a righteous man ") is adjusted to what might be expected 
from an officer who only saw Jesus' end unaccompanied by miraculous 
occurrences. 

It is hard to realize that the above can be seriously offered as a 
valid explanation of the non-appearance in Mk of the Passion-story 
supplements of Mt. When it is added that this is all that Schlatter 
advances in behalf of his paradoxical contention, the reader will 
appreciate why to our own judgment there can be no more forceful 
demonstration of the priority of Mk than the pleas raised against it by 
its few surviving opponents. 



APPENDED NOTE VIII 
THE FOUR-DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 

AT least from the standpoint of Studies in Mt the most important 
chapter in Canon Streeter's able volume FG is that entitled "A Four- 
document Hypothesis" (Ch. IX). With the method and theory here 
laid down we have been compelled to take issue. Difference as regards 
method was expressed in the chapter (Pt. I, Ch. IX) discussing the 
material peculiar to Mt (P mt ) ; as regards application it was expressed 
in the Special Introduction to Book I (Pt. II, Ch. XII). 

It is manifest that Canon Streeter regards the hypothesis he here 
advances as his most original contribution to Synoptic criticism, for 
he professes to "formulate a new principle of Synoptic criticism," 
which he states as follows (p. 224) : 

Wherever parallel passages of Mt and Lk show substantial divergence, 
editorial modification is a less probable explanation than conflation by 
Mt of the language of Q with that of some other version. 

As respects principle and application alike Canon Streeter is justified 
in claiming originality. In fact he has a better claim to it on this score 
than on that whereon his claims are widely supposed to rest; for as 
students of the Synoptic problem do not need to be told, the views 
expressed in his Hibbert Journal article (1921) and restated in the 
chapter entitled "Proto-Luke" in FG (Ch. VIII, pp. 201-222) ad- 
vance but little those published by Paul Feine in his Eine Vorkanon- 
ische tiberlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte 
(1891), and since that date accepted (so far as the doctrine of a " Proto- 
Luke" is concerned) by many of our leading German and English 
critics. 1 Canon Streeter's chief contribution to the Proto-Lk theory 
is the dubious identification of the author of L with Luke the com- 
panion of Paul. 

Great impetus has undoubtedly been given by Streeter's advocacy 
to the theory of L (accepted since 1900 by the present writer; cf. INT, 
pp. 214 ff.). The preceding wide adoption of it, however, is sufficient 
disproof of the charge (FG, p. 227) that critics had been guilty of 

the unconscious assumption that they (Mt and Lk) used no other docu- 
ments, or at least, none of anything like the same value as the " Big Two." 

1 Most of these use the designation L for the document in question. Vernon 
Bartlet prefers S (Special Source). For the bibliography see V. Taylor, Behind 
the Third Gospel, 1926, pp. 1-22. 

505 



506 APPENDED NOTES 

Canon Streeter confesses that he was himself "for many years a vic- 
tim to this illusion." Others may decline with thanks to be included 
in this confession. 

In view of the success attending his advocacy of the Proto-Lk 
theory it was natural that Canon Streeter should seek to merit more 
fully the title of originator by extending the same hypothesis to Mt. 
What we have now to ask is how far a theory of Proto-Mt [in which 
B. Weiss, Quellen der Synopt. Lit, 1908, pp. 1-96 and Soltau (op. cit.) 
will have been Streeter 's most important, if not his only predecessors] 
is supported by the available data. 

The factors concerned in our problem are seven in number, whose 
symbols may be arranged in alphabetical order centering upon P, that 
is, material peculiar to Mt. By a curious coincidence the measure of 
our agreement with Streeter corresponds with this order M N O P Q R 
S, the central P representing the maximum, the extremities M and S 
the minimum of agreement. For while the present writer, as indicated 
in Chapters IX and XII finds no compelling reason to admit any 
Proto-Mt of the type designated M by Streeter, Canon Streeter 
finds no reason at all to admit a Second Source S, finding the sym- 
bol Q sufficient to cover all the data. Since, then, the P element 
is undisputed it remains to compare the respective valuations of 
the four factors N, O, Q, and R. We may take these in reverse 
order. 

(1) The factor R. It has been one of the principal objects of the 
foregoing studies to demonstrate that the "new principle" proposed 
by Streeter (see above, p. 505) is a step backward rather than forward 
in Synoptic criticism. The appeal to Mt's treatment of Mk is fal- 
lacious, because at the points where the parallels show wide diver- 
gence Streeter denies the dependence. Thus we have shown reason to 
believe that Mt 13:24-30, often called the Parable of the Tares, 
is nothing more than a free recast of Mk 4:26-29, the Parable 
of the Patient Husbandman, whose place it occupies. The proof 
of manipulation by R mt rather than derivation from an independent 
document lies in the special interest dictating the changes plus the 
characteristic phraseology particularly recognizable in the appended 
Interpretation (verses 36-43). Similar reasoning from motive and 
phraseology indicates the hand of R mt again in many of the wide 
divergences in Q material, for example the added Beatitudes in Mt 
5:4, 7-9. Only by adopting in advance a theory of transcription 
altogether too mechanical to fit the evidences of free, memoriter 
employment of the chief sources, and then excluding from considera- 
tion passages which display free divergence, does it become possible to 
accept the "new principle" laid down as to the relative probability 
of editorial modification vs. "some other version." 



THE FOUR-DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 507 

(2) The factor Q. We must refer the reader again to our Preface 
(pp. vi, xi) for a demonstration that identification of Q (defined as 
"coincident non-Markan material of Mt and Lk) with S (defined as 
the Source whence the Q material has been drawn) leads to hopeless 
ambiguity and confusion. Streeter's assumption that Q=S, followed 
by more or less successful attempts to find room in Q for P material, 
leads only to worse entanglement of the sources and paves the way 
for subjective judgments as to their nature. 

(3) The factor 0. Streeter makes unwarranted extension of this 
factor to cover the inconvenient Infancy chapters (Mt 1-2). The 
infancy stories are too obviously out of harmony with the other 
material classed under M to form part of the same document; Streeter 
therefore refers them to "oral tradition" (p. 266). But it has been 
shown above (p. 136) that Mt 1 :1-11 is an adaptation of the Greek 
text of I Chr. 2:1-15; 3 :10-17, whereas verses 12-16 must in the nature 
of the case be derived from an unknown document, or else from a type 
of oral tradition so fixed and stereotyped as to be practically indis- 
tinguishable from a document. Proceeding further it was shown that 
1 :18-25 must be at least in part from the pen of R because in verses 
22 f. he again uses the LXX; whereas the rest of the paragraph (which 
in verse 21 implies familiarity on the readers' part with the Hebrew 
meaning of the name Jesus), and all the rest of the infancy section 
(ch. 2), is conspicuously characterized by its use of quotations from 
the Hebrew. This method of quotation differs so completely from the 
usage of Mk, Lk, and R himself that derivation from a written source, 
a source traceable at other points similarly characterized throughout 
the Gospel, is a practically unavoidable inference. We therefore reject 
the designation in application to these sections and apply the 
designation N. 

(4) The factor N. The characteristics of the N supplements, of 
which Streeter himself remarks (p. 502), "They stand to Mk as the 
mistletoe to the oak " is such as to warrant the inference that Mk had 
already been targumed for use in the Aramaic-speaking (Nazarene) 
church which afterwards targumed Mt ( = Ev. Naz. = To 'lovbaiKbv) ; 
and that these additions (including the "Petrine supplements) are 
derived by Mt from this Aramaic targum of Mk. Streeter's remarks 
about "Rabbinic Haggada" as applied to these supplements are 
entirely appropriate, but they do not remove, they only confirm, the 
inference we have made from the use of the Hebrew text, that R found 
them not in oral but in written form. 

We are thus brought back to the question from which we started, 
Is there evidence to warrant the the hypothesis of a Proto-Mt (M)? 
In the text evidence has been adduced to prove that R mt does not 
follow the mosaic style of the Diatessaron; neither does he limit him- 



508 APPENDED NOTES 

self to that "method of conflation" which Streeter describes as 
typical of him on pp. 246-249. Streeter 's comments on the selected 
passages are judicious, but their value toward determining the 
method of R mt is almost nullified by the fact of selection. For the 
passages which militate against the "new principle" have been ex- 
cluded in advance. Now R mt undoubtedly does "conflate," as the 
selections show; but he can also completely rewrite when occasion 
requires. It is for the critic to recognize from admitted characteristics 
such as eschatology, anti-scribal animus, hostility to the "teachers 
and workers of di/o/ua," what occasions Mt would regard as calling 
for revision. 

The strongest plea which can be made for an M theory is based on 
the phenomena of the great Sermon of Book I. Here R mt is admitted 
to have strung together an agglutination of Q sections after a plan of 
his own within the framework of a discourse on Filial Righteousness 
which began with Beatitudes and ended with the parable of the Well- 
founded Building. 

The displaced Q material affords no difficulty, it is only the P 
material which concerns us. Of this material peculiar to Mt employed 
by R beyond the limits of Lk's parallel (Lk 6:20-49) the larger part 
is accounted for to the satisfaction of many critics, including the 
judicious Sir John Hawkins, by Lukan omission. According to these 
critics the substance of the Antitheses of New Law and Old (Mt 5:21- 
48) stands in its original place in S, Lk having merely omitted the 
negative side to expand somewhat the positive (Mt 5:39-42, 44-48= 
Lk 6:27-36). Streeter holds (p. 251): 

that Mt is conflating two separate discourses, one from Q practically 
identical with Lk's Sermon on the Plain, the other from M containing a 
much longer Sermon. 

The "practical identity" of the Lukan version with the S original is 
an inference based on the assumption that R lk abstained from any 
considerable alteration, and that the same applies to Proto-Lk from 
whom Lk draws. Similar limitation of the freedom of R mt is implied 
in the statement (p. 250) : 

The Sermons in Mt and Lk can be derived from a single written source 
only if we postulate an almost incredible amount of editorial freedom in 
rewriting portions of the original. 

The real difficulty for those unwilling to grant such limitations as 
Streeter would impose on the editorial freedom of R mt is that there 
do superficially appear to be two strata of redaction in this portion of 
the Sermon, implying another hand (M?) between the Q form known 
to Lk and the present redaction (R mt ). In our discussion of the 



THE FOUR-DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS 509 

question (pp. 123, 130^ 176 ff.) effort has been given to do full justice 
to this difficulty by observing (p. 181) that "the literary symmetry is 
disregarded in both divisions (Mt 5:21-48 and 6:1-18) by R mt and 
is therefore not likely to be his own work." The inference would 
naturally be that the disappearance of this literary symmetry in Lk's 
version of Mt 5:21-48 is due to abbreviation by L or R lk , while the 
addition of 6:1-18 (Righteousness of the Scribes) is simply another 
of R mt 's supplements from S which would have appeared as Q had Lk 
thought it worth taking up. In both cases the interpolated matter 
(5 :23 f . = 0, 25 f . = Lk 12 :57-59, 29 f . = Mk 9 :43~48, 34b-36 = 0, and 
6 :9-13 = Lk 11 :2-4) is inserted by R mt , to whom we must also ascribe 
the links of attachment 6:1, 7f. and 14 f. Thus the apparent two 
strata of redaction are not really two. Lk has omitted some of the 
Antitheses, which R mfc contrariwise has expanded by a series of 
interpolations, largely Q passages from other contexts. He has 
obscured the connection (preserved in Lk) between 5:43-48 and 
7:1-5 by the long section of interpolated material in ch. 6, of which 
6:2-6, 16-18 alone remains unaccounted for. By symmetry of form 
and worthiness of content these nine verses should be from the Second 
Source. Only the disruptive placing of the paragraph and the fact 
that it does not appear in Lk, stand in the way of our ascribing it to 
the same document as the mass of Q material with which R mt has 
filled up the rest of ch. 6. The disruptive placing forms no more of an 
obstacle in this case than in all the other Q passages which R mt has 
interjected throughout these two chapters. The fact that he has 
spoiled the rhetorical symmetry of the S original by his interpolations 
is exactly paralleled by his interpolations in 5 :21-48. 

There remains accordingly no further obstacle to the explanation 
of Mt's New Torah section (5:21-6:18) on the following basis: R mt 
found in S the discourse on Filial Righteousness substantially as in 
Lk 6:20-49 but unmutilated by omission of the negative side of the 
Antitheses which Lk (or L) may have regarded as affronting the 
Commandments given at Sinai. R mt , to complete what he regarded 
as a condemnation of the Righteousness of the Pharisees, added from 
some portion of S no longer extant, a condemnation of the Righteous- 
ness of the scribes, an authentic teaching of Jesus based on the same 
principle of Inwardness as the discourse on Filial Righteousness but 
given on another occasion (such as Mk 12:38-40?). Finally he inter- 
jected at various points in both parts of the discourse the passages 
indicated as interpolated, mainly displaced Q material, but some of it 
derived from oral sources. Having thus completed his outline of 
Christian Righteousness over against tha,t of the Synagogue, not for- 
getting to add a long Q section on Reward in Heaven (6:19-34 = Lk 
12:33f.; 11:34-36; 16:13; 12:22-31), he continued the S? discourse 



510 APPENDED NOTES 

on Filial Righteousness from the point of interruption in 7:l-5 = Lk 
6:37f., 41 f. 

In all this it does not appear that we have any compelling occasion 
to introduce another edition of the Sermon (McNeile), far less an 
entire Proto-Mt (Streeter). Neither do we need to ascribe to R mt any 
method of procedure other than we have found exemplified repeatedly 
in other portions of the Gospel. The symbol M is not required in the 
source-analysis of Mt as we conceive it. 



APPENDED NOTE IX 
THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES 

FROM the variety of form and diversity of context in which our 
evangelists report the warning of Jesus against the spirit of Pharisaism 
it is apparent that they no longer possessed the key to its original 
application. We ourselves may indeed be unable to restore it; but for 
the problem of transmission, that indispensable search for the environ- 
ment and motives of the evangelists themselves, it should prove 
instructive to investigate the nature and significance of those later 
forms and settings in which we now find it. These settings and adapta- 
tions, which cannot all be correct, should throw some light upon the 
historical conditions reflected respectively by Mt, Mk, and Lk. 

To determine the greater or less originality of the three different 
forms of the text we need only apply the classic principle brevior lectio 
preferenda, together with its later, more refined development: Prefer 
that form which can best account for the variants. Lk 12:1 gives 
altogether the briefest and simplest form of the logion: Trpo^x^e 
tavrois airb TIJS {buys TOW Qapicraiuv "Be on your guard against the 
leaven of the Pharisees." This would appear to be the form in which 
it appeared in the Second Source, for both the preceding and the 
following context of Lk 11 and 12 consists of a great mass of Q mate- 
rial. Both Mk 8:14-21 and Mt 16:5-12, which here follows very 
closely the Markan source, extend the logion and also attach an 
elaborate explanation. We may therefore infer with practical cer- 
tainty that the simple Lukan form, warning against Pharisaism alone, 
without either the Markan addition nai rr/s ffy^s 'Hp&dov ("and the 
leaven of Herod") or the Matthean nai ZaddovKaluv ("and of the 
Sadducees"), is the original; for in addition to brevity this form sup- 
plies an explanation of the additions. 

The additions are typical. Mk considers the conspiracy of the 
Pharisees with the Herodians first mentioned in 3:6 and ultimately in 
12:13 to be the chief danger to Jesus' life. In my article in JBL 
(XXXIX, Dec., 1920) entitled "Pharisees and Herodians in Mark" 
I endeavored to show that Mk's peculiar development of an earlier 
reference to the Warning against Herod (Antipas) brought to Jesus 
by the Pharisees (Lk 13:31) into an actual plot against his life con- 
cocted by "Pharisees and Herodians" is due to his knowledge of the 
formidable danger to the infant Church arising from the alliance of 
Herod Agrippa with the Pharisees to extirpate Christianity. Before 

511 



512 APPENDED NOTES 

41 A.D. such an alliance appears highly improbable. Agrippa's policy 
of "pleasing the Jews" by persecuting the Church gives meaning to 
the phrase "Pharisees and Herodians." However this may be, the 
addition of Mk to the logion making it read "Beware of the leaven 
of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod" is easily accounted for if 
the original appeared obscure. Mk 's idea is that the warning refers to 
the plots against Jesus' life to which he had referred in 3:6. The 
long explanatory supplement of 8:16-21, certainly editorial because it 
combines references to both versions of the miracle of the Loaves, 
winds up with the reproachful "Do ye not yet understand?" Clearly 
Mk feels that two such miracles as these should have sufficed to 
convince the Twelve of the impotence of Jesus' foes to frustrate his 
work. 

Mt takes over with his usual slight verbal abbreviation Mk's long 
explanatory supplement, but with a considerable difference as regards 
the nature of the danger. The disciples are to "Beware of the leaven 
"of the Pharisees and Sadducees." This addition also is typical. "Phari- 
sees and Sadducees " is an expression used several times in Mt to cover 
the unbelieving elements of Israel. In 3:7 it takes the place of the 
simple "multitudes" of Lk 3:7 as the target of the Baptist's epithet 
"Ye generation of vipers," in 16:1 it takes the place of an indefinite 
"others" in Lk 11:16, for which Mk 8:11 gives only "the Pharisees" 
to designate the skeptics who demand a sign from heaven. Clearly the 
danger apprehended by Mt is Jewish unbelief in general, of which the 
Pharisees, but also and especially the worldly and skeptical Sadducees, 
are representative. The addition in 16 :5 is therefore exactly what we 
might expect from Mt if he was perplexed by the logion in its simple 
form and dissatisfied with the explanation of Mk. To make his own 
improvement and its meaning quite unmistakable he makes a charac- 
teristic change in the final clause of the paragraph. Instead of Mk 's 
reproachful "Do ye not yet understand?" Mt has the following: 

Then they understood that he was not bidding them beware of the 
leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees but of the teaching of the Pharisees 
and Sadducees. 

The difficulty with the original brief logion which leads first Mk, 
then Mt after Mk, to extend and interpret it is equally experienced 
by Lk. For the explanatory clause attached after it in Lk 12 :1 "which 
is hypocrisy" is even less satisfactory than the changes of Mk and Mt. 
If there is any vice to whose subtle invasions the disciples were not 
exposed it is that kind of hypocrisy which all our evangelists regard 
as typical of Pharisaism. True, the Talmud itself notes six varieties of 
unworthy Pharisees to be distinguished from the seventh and only 
true Pharisee, who yields obedience to the Torah "because he loves 



THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES 513 

it." Among the unworthy are some who might fairly be compared to 
the "whited sepulchre" of gospel tradition. But better knowledge of 
what Pharisaism really was, a knowledge based largely on Jewish 
sources and less colored by bitter polemic than the representation 
transmitted through New Testament channels, makes us realize 
that the ecclesiastical portrait does justice neither to the Pharisees nor 
to the real ground of Jesus' opposition to them. 

It cannot be denied that the epithet "hypocrite" emanates from 
Jesus himself. Without basis in his own utterance this harsh designa- 
tion could not have passed into the later vocabulary of his followers to 
such a degree and with such application as we find in Mt and the 
Didache. It is quite undeniable that the application of Is. 29:13 to 
the distinctive practices of Pharisaism with the epithet "Ye hypo- 
crites" (Mk 7:6-8) is due to Jesus himself. 

But the connotations which render the term most offensive to us 
are of later origin. Its basic sense, of course, is simply "play-actor." 
Jesus employs the term "play-acting" to distinguish the sort of right 
conduct which springs from any other interest than simple devotion to 
goodness for its own sake. His rejection of good works performed for 
ulterior motives of desire or fear is closely akin to that high definition 
of true Pharisaism already quoted from rabbinic sources, and both 
utterances are elicited by the same unfortunate tendency inseparable 
from all morality of the legalistic type based upon sanctions of reward 
and penalty. The divine Judge "looketh not upon the outward man 
but upon the heart," the legalistic ethic sets a premium upon the 
mask. 

Our discussion of "Jesus and the Law" (Pt. IV, Theme I) should 
make clear the real point at issue. In the discourse on Filial Righteous- 
ness the essential characteristic of that which may justly be so called 
is its spontaneity. Just as a good tree produces good fruit as a con- 
sequence of its inward nature so with the truly good man. His reward 
is that he "becomes a son of his Father." He has as little thought as 
the Samaritan in the parable of accumulating a store of good works. 
He acts on the impulse of native disposition. Accounted a bastard by 
the sons of Abraham according to the flesh his action proves him one 
of the "sons of the Highest." 

Conversely the evil disposition produces evil conduct as naturally 
and inevitably as the tree spoiled at the root. Good works may appear, 
as men attach gifts and ornaments to the branches of trees cut for 
Yule-tide merry-making; but their attachment is artificial. They 
are not the natural product of the tree and have no continuance. So 
with the "righteousness" of any legalistic system. Good conduct 
based on ulterior motives has but a sand foundation. It must be the 
spontaneous, inevitable, disinterested fruit of a "goodness" like that 



514 APPENDED NOTES 



of the all-Father; otherwise it has no real life in it, it is detached from 
the root, it is "play-acting." 

Jesus applies the term "hypocrite" to the typical Pharisee in spite 
of the many Pharisees like the rich youth whom he "looked upon and 
loved " for his obedience to the Law. He does so for the reason that the 
system as a whole tends to just such evils as the six enumerated in the 
rabbinic saying. It offers ulterior motives for right conduct. By just 
so much as this wrong motivation becomes effective it cuts right 
conduct off from its proper root. Had the legalism of the Synagogue 
really tended to produce obedience to the divine ideal "from love of 
it" neither Jesus nor Paul would have broken with Pharisaism. That 
which it and all other systems of quid pro quo ethics tend really to 
produce may not deserve all the obloquy which attaches to the term 
"hypocrite" as moderns employ it, but in contrast with the filial 
righteousness Jesus describes what it tends to produce does deserve to 
be called "play-acting." 

But Separatism, by which the term Pharisaism may be literally 
translated, is by its very nature attended by certain other more subtle 
besetting sins, which Jesus found abundant occasion to rebuke. That 
of self-righteousness is pilloried forever in the parable of the Pharisee 
and the Publican. Intolerance and exclusiveness were the faults of 
these representatives of Synagogue orthodoxy against which Jesus had 
most frequently to contend. In the general connection of the Exile 
Section of Mk, on occasion of sayings concerned with the Galilean 
Eucharist, we should expect a warning of Jesus against "the leaven 
of the Pharisees" to be directed against that aspect of Pharisaism to 
which his own disciples would inevitably be tempted, and in later days 
were indeed most dangerously exposed, I mean the disposition to 
intolerance and exclusiveness, especially in the matter of ritual purity. 

From our interpretation of the term "hypocrisy" as applied by 
Jesus to Pharisaism, an interpretation based upon his most fundamen- 
tal principles concerning conduct, we return, then, to the question of 
the warning. When will it have been appropriate for Jesus to put his 
disciples on their guard against the subtle inclination to take the 
Pharisee's point of view? Obviously when circumstances most 
strongly impelled toward conformity to the moral and religious con- 
ventions of Pharisaism instead of that independence of reason and 
conscience exercised by their Master. Hence we may infer in a general 
way that our three evangelists are substantially right in their placing 
of the logion. A warning against the subtle, unconscious influence of 
Pharisaism (such is the nature of the influence implied in the com- 
parison to leaven) would be peculiarly appropriate in a context whose 
starting point was the attempt of the Pharisees jointly with a delega- 
tion of "scribes from Jerusalem" to impose their own standard of 



THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES 515 

"purity" on Jesus and his disciples. Somewhere in the connection of 
Mk 7:lff. = Mt 15:1 ft. or Lk ll:14ff. Jesus might very well have 
uttered such a warning, for it was only too easy to foresee that they 
would find it difficult indeed to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith 
Christ had set them free" by his example of courageous appeal to 
conscience. 

But it is only in a very general way that Lk, Mk, and Mt agree to 
place the logion somewhere in the connection of the controversy over 
Things "Clean" and "Unclean." The immediate connection differs 
as between Lk and Mk-Mt but in neither case does it indicate a 
perception of the real meaning of the logion if our conception of it is 
correct. 

In Lk 12:1 the logion serves as a link connecting the series of 
Exhortations to Fearless Confession of 12:2-12 with the long denun- 
ciation of Pharisees and scribes of 11 :37-54. This latter recalls indeed 
by its occasion Mk's account of the controversy over Things "Clean" 
and "Unclean," for in both cases Jesus is taken to task by the same 
parties for disregarding the ablutions before eating; but the only point 
of coincidence in the long harangue which follows on both sides is the 
saying on Inward Cleanness (Lk ll:40f.=Mt 23:25f.), which Mk 
7:14-23 elaborately develops and interprets, not forgetting the 
comment corresponding to Lk ll:41=Mt 23:26 that the teaching 
"made all meats clean." There is enough resemblance to justify the 
inference that Mk and Q are here reporting the same collision, but 
verbal resemblance is almost wholly absent. Lk attaches at this 
point (11 :42-52) the series of Woes on Scribes and Pharisees connected 
by Mt with Mk 12:38-40 as part of the final utterance of doom upon 
Jerusalem. This earlier setting is doubtless due to the just reflection 
that the Galilean opponents of Jesus, who drove him by their machina- 
tions from the scenes of his earlier ministry were the Pharisees and 
their allies the scribes from Jerusalem, whereas in Judea the group 
included as its leading element the Sadducean priesthood. 

The altercation continues in Lk 11:53 f. with a description of the 
hostile pressure of the scribes and Pharisees, and in 12:1 of the great 
popular concourse. Coming as a sequel to this description of the 
plotting of these enemies of Jesus, who "laid wait for him to catch 
something out of his mouth" and prefacing the Exhortations to 
Fearless Confession, the logion is clearly taken by Lk to refer to the 
hidden wickedness of the conspirators. Either he takes a view of it 
similar to Mk 's, making the warning apply to the secret machinations 
of the Pharisees, which however carefully "covered up" will ulti- 
mately "be revealed" (verse 2), in which case the addition "which is 
hypocrisy" might be due to a later hand; or else he assumes, however 
strangely, that the disciples need to guard against the temptation to 



516 APPENDED NOTES 

similar "hypocrisy!" Neither application is easily credible. If .Jesus 
had been desirous of putting his disciples on their guard against the 
conspirators he would hardly have used such cryptic language. If he 
wished to encourage them to be open and bold in confession the 
example of the Pharisees was hardly that of the cowardice he wished 
them to avoid. 

As between Mk and Mt the latter is certainly truer to the almost 
invariable symbolism of "leaven" in Jewish parable. As Easton notes, 
"Leaven is the usual symbol for secret evil influence." Mt is therefore 
probably correct in his declaration that Jesus was warning against a 
"teaching" rather than against conspiracies, whether between 
"Pharisees and Herodians" or among "Pharisees and scribes." 
But the "teaching" of the Pharisees and Sadducees, by which we have 
seen that Mt describes the unbelief of Judaism as represented in its 
two leading sects, would be an extremely improbable source of temp- 
tation to the Twelve. Moreover for reasons already given we must 
hold to Pharisaic teaching alone as that against which the warning is 
directed. 

It has also been shown that in the sense which Jesus attached to 
Pharisaism it might well become in fact it did become a very real 
and subtle temptation to his followers. They were but ill prepared to 
exercise that sovereign self-determination of conscience which he had 
exercised with all the authority of a prophet proclaiming "Thus saith 
Jehovah" against the conventions of priest or law-giver. One can 
easily imagine Jesus flinging out this challenging "Beware" on some 
such occasion as the attempt of Pharisees and "scribes from Jerusa- 
lem" to impose their artificial standards on his free conscience. But 
when did the occasion arise which brought his utterance to remem- 
brance? 

If the warning, Beware of the teaching of the Pharisees means what 
we have been constrained to think it means there is one occasion which 
so far transcends all others in importance and suggestiveness that no 
other can be considered in comparison with it. It is that cardinal 
crisis in the history of the apostolic Church which as Lk himself 
reports was brought forward by "certain of the sect of the Pharisees 
who believed," an intolerant reactionary group, denounced by Paul as 
"false brethren " who for a time seemed likely to impose their artificial 
and conventional rule of "clean and unclean" upon the Church to the 
destruction of its hopes of missionary conquest. After a prolonged 
struggle which came to the verge of disrupting the Church Paul was 
able to make good against these "Judaizers" his claim of absolute 
liberty from the conventions of Mosaism both for himself and his 
converts. But Pharisaism came very near to triumph in the circle of 
the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, a triumph which would certainly 



THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES 517 

have proved fatal to Christianity as a world-religion. Subtly and 
unconsciously James and John, yes, even Peter and Barnabas, were 
carried off their feet by this "hypocrisy " (for Paul does not hesitate to 
apply Jesus ' own term of opprobrium to dependence in any degree by 
a subject of "the grace of the Lord Jesus" on Mosaic purity). Those 
who sympathized with Paul and even James and Cephas and John 
sympathized with him to the extent of granting that heart-purity 
could be secured in the case of Gentiles "by faith" alone must have 
realized that those of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed and 
nevertheless were seeking to impose their own impracticable yoke on 
the neck of Gentile believers were a "leaven" of the old order most 
perilous to the Church. 

On a later occasion, when James and the elders were urging Paul to 
make a public demonstration that he himself set an example to "the 
Jews settled among the Gentiles" of "walking orderly keeping the 
Law" James points out to Paul that in Jerusalem "there are many 
myriads of the Jews that believe, and they are all zealots for the Law." 
In 54 A. D. that element of Pharisean leaven was at least large enough 
to give extreme uneasiness to Paul though fortunately not large 
enough in the end to "leaven the whole lump." 

Our discussion has shown that the logion "Beware of the leaven of 
Pharisaism" is an erratic saying which our evangelists have difficulty 
both in locating and interpreting. Its authenticity is beyond question. 
Its original application and meaning are more doubtful. But when we 
ask concerning its transmission the problem seems less insoluble. It 
has been shown in the foregoing text that the Exile Section of Mk as 
well as the corresponding fourth Book of Mt are supremely concerned 
with the great problem of church unity engendered by the attempt to 
carry over into the new faith the Pharisaic distinctions of "clean" and 
"unclean." The logion finds various settings within the broad limits 
of this Book. The conclusion we venture to draw from a considera- 
tion of all the data is this: The circumstances which brought Jesus' 
saying to remembrance and perpetuated it by experience of its need 
and value was the disruptive effort of "certain of the Pharisees who 
had believed" to impose their dogma on the Church. These showed 
in their far-reaching subtle activity, creeping in privily to spy 
out the liberty of their Gentile brethren in order to bring them into 
bondage, how real a danger to the Church might be the tendency to 
revert to Pharisaism. Certainly the modern Church will be ill-advised 
if it disregards as obsolete the warning: "Beware of the leaven of the 
Pharisees." 



APPENDED NOTE X 
ADDENDA 

1. In our Preface the place of the present volume in a series of 
contributions, completed and projected, toward a Life of Christ was 
indicated as clearly as was possible four months ago. Since then new 
conditions have intervened. An invitation was accepted to deliver 
the inaugural series of Kent Shaffer Lectures on the Life of Christ 
at Yale Divinity School, and Henry Holt and Co. have added to the 
obligation the author feels for their courtesy by undertaking immedi- 
ate publication of this further contribution under the title "Jesus 
the Son of God." 

The Lectures necessarily take a place in the series of preliminary 
studies without pre-empting that of the culminating volume. Three 
chapters, headed respectively "What the Eye Saw," "What the Ear 
Heard," and "What Entered into the Heart of Man," aim to bring 
out a critical estimate of the three chief strands of gospel tradition, 
Markan, Mattheo-Lukan, and Johannine. Should opportunity not be 
given for the contemplated Life this preliminary sketch will serve to 
indicate the lines along which it might be expected to develop. A 
glimpse at plans on which the architect is still at work may serve a 
useful purpose even if the finished building shows altered forms. 

2. Since the Ms. of these "Studies" left the author's hands several 
contributions have appeared of which he would gladly have availed 
himself. Schlatter's Matthttus came in time to be utilized in a few 
footnotes and some recasting of Appended Note VII. Other important 
works, including some long available, may have failed of adequate 
consideration through my own regrettable deficiencies. For this a 
charitable judgment is asked from contributors and readers alike. 

3. An article published by R. Dunkerley of Gloucester, on the 
other hand, appearing in HThR for January, 1930 (XXIII, 1), under 
title "The Oxyrhynchus Fragments," approaches very closely the 
subject of Appended Note VI, bringing it into relation to the logia 
recently discovered among the papyri of Behneseh by Grenfell and 
Hunt. A few words seem, therefore, to be called for at this point to 
explain our dissent from some of Dunkerley's conclusions. 

As a standard discussion of the nature, text, and literary relations 
of the Oxyrhynchus logia we may take The Sayings of Jesus by H. G. 
Evelyn- White (Cambridge, 1920), its conclusions having met general 
approval though controverted on some points by Vernon Bartlet 

518 



ADDENDA 519 

(Expositor XXIII, 1 ; February, 1922) . Dunkerley had previously dis- 
cussed the intricate problem of the uncanonical gospels in two able 
articles in Expos. Times (XXXIX, pp. 437-442 and 490-495). He 
now approves with most critics the judgment that most of the ex- 
cerpts of the Oxyrhynchus logia, if not all, are drawn from Ev. Hebr., 
though Evelyn- White, with many other critics including several who 
could avail themselves of Schmidtke's epoch-marking work, fail 
properly to distinguish this Ebionite Greek gospel, current in southern 
Syria and Egypt, from the Aramaic Ev. Naa., orthodox in type, 
current in northern Syria and Mesopotamia. 

The point of interest for ourselves is the question whether this 
Ebionite gQspel known to Clement and Origen, from which the former 
makes an extract in substance identical with Oxyrh. Pap. No. 654, 
Log. II., may be identified with that to which Origen refers in his 
first Homily on Lk as "superscribed (eTrtyeypa^ewv) Gospel of the 
Twelve." In Appended Note VI (pp. 488 ff.) reasons were given for 
making this identification (against Schmidtke) with certain leading 
critics among whom Evelyn- White might properly have been included. 
Since Dunkerley regards the coincident extract as inconclusive, and 
finds objections on other grounds to regarding Ev. Hebr. as = Ev. Eb., 
it becomes needful to examine these objections and observe whether 
the identification can still stand. 

Objections 1-3 fall to the ground together with 4 (the coincident 
logion not demonstrative) when it is assumed, as in Appended Note 
VJ, that the Ebionite "falsified and mutilated" Mt is really repre- 
sented by the extracts given by Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 13 f.), 
however we may find occasion to leave room for later development 
of this Ebionite literature. Epiphanius twice states (XXX. 13 and 14) 
that the "beginning" of this gospel (Ev. Eb.) was as follows: 

It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judea that John ap- 
peared practicing a baptism of repentance in the River Jordan. This man 
was said to be of the race of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias and 
Elizabeth, and all went forth unto him. 

Epiphanius' second reference (XXX. 14) has the slight difference of 
reading that after "Herod the king of Judea" it adds "in the high- 
priesthood of Caiaphas" and for "John" reads "one John by name." 

Epiphanius testifies explicitly that this writing, which abbreviated 

by "cutting out the genealogies of Mt" with much other material, 

and manifestly rested here and elsewhere much more on Lk than on 

.Mt, was "called among them (the Ebionites) the Gospel according 

to Matthew." It was also called "The Hebrew (Gospel)," not because 

,it was written in Aramaic (for as we know, Clement of Alexandria, 

though ignorant of Aramaic, twice quotes the Ev. Hebr.), but ap- 



520 APPENDED NOTES 

patently because of its currency as the "only" gospel recognized by 
this Jewish-christian sect (Irenaeus and Eusebius). 

It was not until after it had related "many things" that the 
Ebionite gospel returned to the subject of the baptism of John, 
relating now more explicitly John's appearance, costume and diet, 
with slight (vegetarian) modifications of the Synoptic description, and 
proceeded to narrate the baptism of Jesus in a conflated form com- 
bining Mt with both the a and the /3 readings of Lk. The modification 
and the conflation easily prove the relatively late date (110-115?) 
and the Ebionite character of the writing; but we are not here con^ 
cerned with these. We ask why Ev. Eb. should present two accounts 
of John's baptism separated by a long interval (TroXXd) wherein one 
of the chief data appears to have been a parallel to the Synoptic 
account of the calling of the first disciples (Mk 1:16-20 plus 2:14 
plus 3:13-19 and parallels); though the intervening story is not 
given in the form of narrative in the third person, but as an utterance 
of some person who is relating how Jesus recalled the facts to the 
memory of his disciples. They had been called to be "twelve apostles 
for witness to Israel." The speaker tells his hearers of this calling 
"at the Lake of Tiberias." The situation is that of I Cor. 15:5 (7?). 

The explanation offered in Appended Note VI is that the speaker 
in this account of how Jesus called the twelve to be his witnesses to 
Israel is "James the Just," whose conversion had in the meantime 
been related in the form represented in the famous extract of Origen. 
James has now taken the part assumed by Peter in Acts 1-4 of 
"standing up with the eleven" to give their message as witnesses on 
behalf of Jesus. We may assume that the story ran somewhat as 
follows: James the Lord's brother, having heard at Nazareth of the 
catastrophe at Jerusalem vowed that he would not touch food till 
he should see the Lord risen from the dead (Origen). Jesus, accord- 
ingly, after delivering proof of his resurrection to the servant of the 
high priest, went to Nazareth and appeared to James instituting the 
resurrection feast in his family circle. Next, through the agency of 
James (not Peter) Jesus' disciples were rallied and brought to Jeru- 
salem, where, under leadership of James, they bear their "witness 
to Israel." 

This Ebionite method of rewriting the gospel story under the form 
of "new Acts of the Apostles" gave opportunity for restatement of 
every controverted saying and doing of the Lord in the form and 
sense maintained by the Jerusalem church as having the special 
authority of the Apostles. If we may draw analogies from the scenes 
depicted in the Petrinized (Catholic) version surviving in the Clemen- 
tina James mounted the seven steps of the temple on successive days, 
refuted the seven heresies of Judaism and overwhelmed, as leader of 



ADDENDA 521 

the Church, the futile arguments of Caiaphas the high priest in 
favor of the obsolete sacrificial system. Then the successive Apostles 
enumerated in Fragment 2 (Philip and Bartholomew appear to have 
been omitted from the "twelve" by accident) have their say, perhaps 
in pairs, as in the Clementina, beginning with "John" and ending 
with "Matthew" (Ev. Eb.~). This gave opportunity to include all the 
"traditions of the elders" transmitted in oral form to Papias and 
by him in writing to Irenaeus. Thus "traditions of John" including 
(in variant form) the Pericope Adulterae and even utterances of 
"Judas Iscariot" meet us on both lines of transmission. "Matthew" 
is also singled out on both sides as "the publican" to act the part 
of scribe. There is thus a derivational connection between the Ev. 
Hebr. and the "traditions of the (Jerusalem) Elders" reported from 
Papias by Irenaeus. 

If such was the structural scheme of the Ebionite gospel we can 
understand why it should be designated by those who acknowledged 
no other the "Gospel according to Matthew," while those who dis- 
cerned its inferior and dependent character referred to it as "The 
Hebrew Gospel," or "The Gospel according to the Hebrews," or 
(from its most salient characteristic) "The Gospel of (or according to) 
the Twelve (Ev. XII}" In fact Jerome himself explicitly states 
(contra Pelag. iii. 2) that Secundum Apostolos was one of the titles 
applied to his (falsified) Ev. Hebr. At the same time it will be equally 
apparent why a series of extracts made from it by an excerptor, 
desirous for any reason of making an anthology of the life-giving 
words of Jesus, could not, even if his excerpts were set down in just 
the order of the original, give any intelligible sequence of ideas. The 
original only reported that "John" related this, "Andrew" that, 
"Philip" the other (Papias). Reasons for the order would be irre- 
coverable. Dunkerley's objection 1 thus disappears. 

Again the objection that Ev. Hebr. had but 2,200 lines against 2,500 
in Mt (Nicephorus) loses all force on our assumption. By 375, when 
Epiphanius wrote, there had of course been large development on the 
original stock of the "new Acts of the Apostles." The Leucian Acts 
are only one example. But when Hegesippus resorted to Ev. Hebr. 
for his traditions of "James the Just" a work of 2,200 lines might well 
suffice for the purpose in view. On pp. 481, 488, and 490 above it has 
been pointed out that no more space would be needed; the extracts 
already given show how drastically the Ebionite evangelist could 
condense and omit when it did not serve his purpose to conflate and 
expand. 

The Lucan coloration of Ev. Eb. is also objected and is indeed very 
conspicuous; in some of Epiphanius' extracts Lukan material de- 
cidedly predominates. But the same is true of the Pericope Adul- 



522 APPENDED NOTES 

terae, which Eusebius found in the Ev. Hebr., and which the Ferrariani 
attach to Lk 21 :38. Thus, on the basis assumed in Appended Note VI, 
Dunkerley's objections 1-4 present no obstacle whatever to the 
identification of Ev. Hebr. with Ev. Eb. The further identification of 
both with the Gospel of the Twelve (Ev. XII) is brought to a very high 
degree of probability in the three scholarly articles of H. Waitz in 
the ZNW for 1912-13 (XIII, pp. 338 ff. and XIV, pp. 38 ff. and 
117 ff.) on "Das Evangelium der zwolf Apostel." The peculiarity of 
Waitz's argument is that while he identifies Ev. Eb. with Ev. XII, 
and was even at first disposed to identify this with the source em- 
ployed by Hegesippus called "Ev. Hebr." by Eusebius, he ultimately 
(art. Ill, p. 122 f .) took the ground that this Ev. Hebr. was a different 
writing from the Ev. Hebr. of Clement and Origen. 

The subject is too complex for our present limits, but seeing our- 
selves committed to an attempted solution in spite of the prudent 
warning of Streeter that the adventure is "daring," we may take the 
present occasion for meeting the latest objections based on the 
Oxyrhynchus logia, objections which Dunkerley formulates after the 
four already met in the following language: 

(5) Surely such a work as he (Evelyn- White) posits would imply in its 
title what it was; whereas the prologue here however reconstructed pro- 
vides a different opening altogether. 

(6) Further, if, as appears almost certain, there is any kind of mention 
in the prologue of the Ten and Thomas (in reference presumably to 
Jn 20:26), or of any other disciple and Thomas, or of Thomas alone, 
surely the identification with the Gospel according to the Twelve must fall 
to the ground. 

(7) He (Evelyn- White) objects that the reference to Jn 20:26 cannot 
be intended to suggest the occasion of the teaching; but his argument is 
not convincing. "Who would represent the disciples as asking for instruc- 
tion," he says, "as to prayer, fasting and the like in the period between the 
Resurrection and the Ascension? " One may answer by asking, Why not? 
It appears to me quite a possible setting for such a conversation. 

(8) He therefore regards this reference as merely the citation of proof 
that he who uttered these sayings was the living Lord. Surely this would 
be a most awkward and unusual introduction to such a book. 

(9) There is more to be said than Evelyn- White allows for the gospel 
character (in distinction from that of a collection of sayings) at least of 
O(xyrhynchus) P(apyrus) 654. 

These five additional objections to Evelyn-White's identification 
of the source of the Oxyrhynchus logia with Ev. Hebr., and this un- 
canonical gospel itself with Ev. XII, are all concerned with the 
so-called "prologue," the beginning of Papyrus 654 which in Evelyn- 
White's restoration reads as follows: 



ADDENDA 523 

These are the life-giving Sayings which Jesus spake who liveth and was 
seen of the Ten and of Thomas. And he said to them: Whosoever heareth 
these Sayings shall not taste of death. 

Dunkerley's contention (6) is that the "prologue" (which he admits 
presents the succeeding list of excerpts as logia addressed to the 
group described in Jn 20:26) implies a group of something other than 
Twelve as authorities for the logia, whereas the Ev. XII presented the 
Twelve (including Iscariot, or perhaps taking James the Just as 
surrogate for Judas) as the "witnesses." 

This and the four associated objections derive such force as they 
have from an assumption which is indeed made by Evelyn-White, 
but which is to our judgment both needless and improbable; viz., that 
"the prologue" fits exactly to the group of excerpts which it intro- 
duces. In reality, while the assumed occasion is a favorite among the 
composers of agrapha (e.g., Apoc. Petri) the logia themselves are 
neither post-resurrectional in character (pace Dunkerley) nor "homo- 
geneous" (pace Evelyn-White). They consist of material of Synoptic 
type, showing no connection (as does the "prologue") with Jn, but 
apparently owing their collection to the fact that they are either 
supplementary to Synoptic tradition, or, where closely parallel, show 
divergences suggesting a different occasion or application. The 
alleged "homogeneity" is either non-existent, or can only be defended 
by precarious suppositions such as those of Vernon-Bartlet, who 
himself acknowledges a "two-fold character of the collection" as 
"partly historical, partly timeless or mystical." Saying V (Pap. 654) 
is a parallel to the teaching on Almsgiving, Fasting, and Prayer of 
Mt 6:1-18; Saying VIII is a plaint of Wisdom, quite possibly pre- 
Christian like Bar. 3:9-37. We must put together the mystical 
Gospel according to the Egyptians and the Synoptic-typed Ev. Hebr. to 
discover any "homogeneity," and even then we shall be hard put to 
it to discover a more definite motive for the collection than the desire 
to supplement the canonical Gospels. 

We may therefore leave quite open the question whether Pap. 1 
(the so-called Oxyrhynchus Logia) as well as Pap. 654, or only the 
latter was meant for public circulation. At least the key to both 
collections and their motive is furnished by the "prologue." But the 
"prologue " is not only in the nature of the case later than the excerpts, 
it also constructs a false setting for them. Moreover one cannot well 
imagine an excerptor making an anthology of "life-giving words" 
from a swgrfe.uncanonical source, especially if himself employing the 
fourth Gospel. Two methods would be open to him for perpetuating 
the supplementary material of Ev. Hebr. tf he specially valued it. He 
could (a) copy the work, which remained current in Egypt long after 
his time; or (b) collate it with his canonical Gospels as the Zion MSB. 



524 APPENDED NOTES 

collate the readings of Ev. Naz. with canonical Mt. Our collector has 
chosen neither course. His work is much more akin to modern collec- 
tions of agrapha. 

Still more indicative of collection from more than one source is the 
fact that the collector has not been able to avoid a certain amount of 
overlapping. Saying V (Pap. 654, 5) gives one answer to the question 
how the Jewish religious observances are to be perpetuated, viz., by 
private devotion. Saying VII (Pap. 1, Log. II) gives a different 
answer, viz., Fasting and Sabbath-keeping must be universalized; 
abstinence must have "the world" as its object, sabbath rejoicing 
must sanctify the whole week. We conclude that the collector did not 
limit himself to a single source but aimed to gather material supple- 
mentary to the canonical from at least the two chief uncanonical 
gospels current among Egyptian believers. 

If, then, the "prologue" is no more than an editor's improvised 
framework for his collection of miscellaneous excerpts we surely 
could not expect a closer approximation to the transmitting group 
who in Ev. XII=Ev. Hebr. = Ev. Eb. appear as Jesus' "witnesses to 
Israel" than "the Ten and Thomas" who in Jn 20:26 are similarly 
commissioned by the living Lord. Ev. XII either thought of the 
original twelve as thus commissioned, or possibly counted James the 
Just as surrogate for Iscariot. Either way a post-resurrection occasion 
(and Dunkerley is probably right in thinking this to be implied in 
the "prologue") would require the group of Jn 20:26, where the 
commissioned witnesses are in fact "the ten and Thomas." 

With the recognition of the editorial character of "the prologue" 
no more remains of objections 5-9 raised by Dunkerley to the identi- 
fication of Ev. Hebr. with Ev. XII than of objections 1-4. Whether in 
addition Ev. Eb. may be regarded as another designation for the same 
variously called apokryphon must be determined after due considera- 
tion especially of the arguments of Schmidtke and Waitz. In any 
event the factitious importance attached to the title Ev. Hebr. must 
disappear with the recognition that it is almost wholly due to the 
illusion of Apollinaris of Laodicea and the unscrupulous vanity of 
Jerome. Ev. Hebr. was probably the first writing to claim authorship 
by "Matthew." In content it really offered only a dependent and 
sectarian blend of our own first and third canonical Gospels. It had 
no real claim to rank with the anonymous North Syrian Gospel from 
which it borrowed most of its material, reluctantly surrendering in 
return its fanciful title "According to Matthew." 

4. Most recently of all has come a valuable work by B. H. Brans- 
comb under the title Jesus and the Law of Moses (R. R. Smith, New 
York, 1930). This obviously parallels our Theme I of Part IV (pp. 
339-360), giving fuller treatment from a kindred viewpoint. 



ADDENDA 525 

5. Reference has been made above, on pp. 134, 165 and 174n, to 
"Appended Note X." As regards 134 and 165 Mt's use of St/ccuoo-i^jj 
corresponds to the observation of W. Robertson Smith in his Prophets 
of Israel (1882), p. 71 f., "Righteousness is to the Hebrew not so much 
a moral quality as a legal status." 

As regards 174n we may add a reference to the Excerpta e Theodoto 
(74), where the purpose of the Lord's coming is declared to have been 
"to make peace, even that which comes from heaven to those on 
earth." 



INDEX I 

PATRISTIC REFERENCES 



Abercius, 14, 499 
Addai, Doctrine of, 16 
Africanus, 53 
Al-Biruni, 157 
Ammonius, 49 n. 
Andreas of Caesarea, 117, 454 
Apollinaris of Hierapolis, 56 f ., 258, 441 
464 

Laodicea, 162, 478, 480 f. 

Aristeas (Pseudo-), 203 f., 352 
Ascents of James, 489 f. 
Assumptio Mosis, 204, 379, 485 n. 
Augustine, 13, 63 

Bardesanes, 16 

Barnabas (Pseudo-), 25, 76, 352, 443 

Basilides, 3, 31, 42 



Ev. Duod. (XII), 44, 481, 488 

Eb., 41, 44, 46, 481, 492-495 

Hebr., 18 f., 43, 59, 110, 171, 

241-252, 479 f., 486 f., 493 f. 
Naz., xv, 17, 89, 161, 171 n., 234, 

248 n., 258 f., 390, 406, 478-480, 

507 
Petri (See "Peter, Ps.") 

Faustus, 28 

Genesis Rabba, 174 n. 

Gospel ace. to Egyptians, 19 n., 28, 45 

Judas-Thomas, 46 

Ebionites, Hebrews, The Twelve, 

etc. (See Ev., Eb., Hebr., XII, etc.) 



Hegesippus, 14, 79, 482-484 

Hippolytus, 53, 463 
Canticles Rabba, 368 n. 
Celsus, 73 

Cerinthus, 58, 149, 457 
Chrysostom, 48 
Clement (Alexandrinus), 56, 64, 205, 

380 n., 483 
(Romanus), 73, 78, 203 n., Jerome, xii, 14, 89 n., 162, 220 n., 471, 



Ignatius, 4, 20, 25, 30 f., 54, 153, 171, 

259 
Irenaeus, xv, 42, 45, 48, 63, 457, 463, 

465, 493 



229 n., 233, 247, 366, 476 



479 ff. 



Clementina, 91, 205, 225 n., 256, 352, Johanan b. Zacchai, 71 f. 



380 n., 489, 493 f. 
Consularia Constantinopolitana, 51 f. 

Diatessaron, 16, 43, 507 



Enoch (Eth.), 414 n. 
(Slav.), 380 



John (Pseudo), Acts of, 494 
Josephus, 14, 17, 226, 402 
Judas Thomas, Gospel of, 494 
Justin Martyr, 42 f., 440, 444, 454 



5,498 



Melito, xv f. 

Muratorianum, 48, 54 f., 59, 463 f. 



Epiphanius, 14, 43-50, 52, 163, 480, Origen, 29, 31, 39, 55 n., 74, 89, 468, 



. 485-494 
Eusebius 

Chronicle, 441 

History, 16, 20, 33, 42, 53, 78 f., 441, 

457, 486 
Preparatio, 154 
Theophany, 478, 481 



471, 480 f., 483, 488 
Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 91, 125, 175, 235, 
443 

Pantaenus, 20 f . 

Papias, x, 3 ff ., 27, 48 f., 55, 256, 362 n., 
439-442, 445-451, 487, 493 f. 



527 



528 



INDEX 



Paschal Chronicle, 50, 464 
Peter (Peeudo) 

Apocalypse, 146, 486 

Doctrine, 31 

Gospel, 19, 22, 29 n., 44, 251 f., 256 

Preaching, 199 
Philastrius, 462 
Philo, 202, 442 
Pirke Aboth, 107, 125, 131, 189, 204, 

235, 379 
Pliny, 14 
Plutarch, 151 

Polycarp, Epistle of, 25 n., 76, 444, 465 
Prologues 

Anti-Marcionite, 33, 452-466 

of Melito (?), xiv f. 

Monarchian, xv, 33 



Quadratus, 441 f. 

Sanhedrin, 205 

Sayings of the Fathers (See "Pirke 

Aboth") 

Sefer Hayyashar, 153 
Shemoneh Esreh, 431-433 

Tatian, 16, 43, 49 n. 

Teaching of Twelve (See "Didacht") 

Tertullian, 55, 456-460 

Test, of XII Pair. 

Levi, 175, 259 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 155 
Theodoret, 43 
Theodotion, 205 

Yalkut, 156 



INDEX II 



SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS 
(Authors' names in small capitals) 



Abbreviations, viii n., xxiv 

of Mt., 87, 138 

Abgar of Edessa, 15 

Acts (First), 224 ff ., 352, 401 

vs. Mt, 15-18, 224-226 

Adiabene, 15, 226, 352, 498 

Administration, 231-233, 406 

Adoptionism, 149 f. 

Agape, 221 n., 222 f. 

ALLEN, 10, 87 f., 96 f ., 122, 135 f ., 470 f., 

499 

Alogi, 53 

Am-haaretz, 227, 341 f. 
Anonymity of Mt, 32 
Antioch, 15, 19 f ., 22 f ., 24, 31-33, 365 f . 
Anti-Pharisaism, 124, 346 
Antitheses of Higher Ethic, 123, 177 f., 

347, 474, 508 

Apocalypse (Synoptic), 67, 74, 467-469 
Apocalypticism, 415-418 
Apostasy (The Great), 69, 74, 467 
Apostolate, 361-374 
Apostolic Conclave, 224 

Council, 34, 224-226 

Mission, 196-201 

Appearances (Resurrection), 114, 254 f. 

Arabia, 15 

Aramaic documents, xi, 21, 25, 34 (See 

also Ev. Naz.) 

language, 157, 497 

Aristion, 3 

BACON, B. W., viii-xi, 3 n., 4 n., 6, 37, 
50, 67, 82, 85 n., 86, 105, 112, 118, 
122, 167, 170, 174 n., 191, 203, 212, 
218, 221 f., 228 n., 230 f., 377, 445, 
467, 486 

Baptizers (Sabeans = Mazbotheans), 
157 

Bartholomew (Apostle), 20 

BARTLET (Vernon), 94, 106 f., 115, 439 

Beatitudes, 147 f., 179 

BERGMANN, 204 

Beth-Alpha mosaic, 154 



Birth (See Nativity) 

BLASS, 486 n. 

Blindness and Deafness (spiritual), 

210 f., 240, 376, 381-387 
Books of Mt, 82 
Box, G. H., 153 
BRUYNE DE, 452-466 
BUCHLER, 402 n. 
BURKITT, 16, 92, 95, 98, 100, 101 n., 

164, 500 

Caesarea (Philippi), 230, 236, 239, 398, 
431 

(Stratonis=Palestina), 497 

Call (of Apostles), 44 

of Matthew, 193 

of Jesus (See Baptism and Vo- 
cation) 

Canaanite (Syrophoenician) woman, 
18, 219, 398, 409 

CASE, S. J., 187 n. 

CHEYNE, T. K, 154 

Chiliasts, 55, 75 

Christ (See Discourses, Incidents, Say- 
ings) 

Life of, vii-x, 525 
Titles of, 379, 394, 415 f., 425 
Servant, 204 
Son of David, 425 

God, 145 ff. 

Man, 349 

Baptism and Vocation, 214, 393 

Christology, 146, 248 

Clean and unclean (Law of), 219-221, 
350, 401, 409, 515 

CLEMEN, C., 154, 453 

Gome-outers, 164 ff., 185, 341 f. (See 
also Am-kaaretz) 

Cornelius, 224 

Covenant (Farewell) Supper, 115 
117 f., 260, 421 



DALMAN, 7 n. 

Day of Judgment (See Judgment Day) 



529 



530 



INDEX 



DBBRUYNE [See Bruyne (de)] 
DIETERICH, 130 
Discourses (individual) 

Abiding Wealth, 108, 182 f., 347 

Administration, 218-230, 230-235 

Apostleship, 196-201, 361-374 

Consummation, 236-244, 244-249 

Doom-chapter, 67 f., 245 

Filial Righteousness, 81, 168 f., 
172 ff., 178 f., 340-346, 513 

Prayer, 108, 123, 347 

Revelation to Elect, 204-215, 215- 
217 

Reward, 509 

Right Religion, 122 

Righteousness, 165-169, 172-186, 
340 ff. 

Woes on Scribes and Pharisees, 161, 
246 f., 427 

Impenitent Cities, 208 

Dispersion of Apostles, 6, 63 n. 
Dissemination foci, 19, 31 
Divorce, 239, 349, 353 
Dobschutz, v., 32, 47 n., 71, 131 f. 
Doom-chapter, 67 ff., 245 (See also 
Jerusalem, Fall of) 

Ebionites (sect), 42 f., 45 

Ebionite gospel (See Ev. Eb.) 

Edessa of Osrhoene, 15, 36, 51, 164 n., 

499 

Egypt, 19 

Election (The), 202-205, 383-387 
Epilogue (The), 113, 250-261 
Epiphany, 58, 146-150 
Eschatology, 426-435 

of Apostolic Fathers, 434 

S, 368 

Ethic of Jesus, 339-360 

Exile section, 219-221, 398 f., 409 

Faith, 86, 190 ff., 361, 374, 388 

Wonders (See Miracle) 

False prophets, 64, 69, 73 f., 77, 86, 
125, 149, 175, 183-185, 468 

Farewell Supper (See Covenant Sup- 
per) 

Fasts and Fasting, 361 

FEINE, 106 

FIEBIG, 72 

Filial Righteousness (See Discourse on) 

Food laws, 224-228, 381, 408 

Forgiveness of sins, 189-191, 391-393 

brethren, 129, 406 



Formulas (of Mt), 81, 138 
Four-document theory, 505-510 

Gnostics and Gnosticism, 45, 149, 488 

Antinomian, 47, 348 

Samaritan, 74, 468 f. 
GODET, 38 
Grace (See Reward) 

Haggada and Halacha, 95 f., 602 
HAENACK, VON, 65, 92-95, 115, 176, 439, 

452 ff., 473, 488 
HARRIS, R., xv, 449, 500 
HAWKINS, 92-98, 107, 123, 138-142, 

188, 451 

Hellenization, 22, 47, 76, 407, 428, 481 
Herod Agrippa, 6, 228, 424, 511 f. 

Antipas, 503, 511 f. 

Hiding of the Mystery (See Mystery) 
HILGENFELD, 52, 445, 488 

Illusions of critics, xi ff. 
Incidents of gospel story 

Anointing in Bethany, 110 f., 399 

Arrest in Gethsemane, 258 

Baptism and Vocation, 115 

Coin in fish's mouth (See Stater) 

Debates in temple, 243 

Divorce, Question about, 353-356 

Fig tree withered, 243 

Mary and Martha, 113 

Passion, 252 f. 

Penitent Harlot, 110 f. 

Thief, 112 

Rejection at Nazareth, 116, 399 n. 

Request of Zebedaeidae, 503 

Rich Enquirer, 88, 503 

Widow's Son, 111 

Zacchaeus, 112 
Inwardness in Worship, 121 

James the Just, 225 f., 254-256, 352, 
401, 408, 484 f., 490, 492 f., 517 

son of Alphaeus, 39 f . 

Epistle of, 74 f . 

Jerusalem 

Coming, 421 f. 

Decrees, 403, 408 f. 

Doom and Fall, 66 ff., 364 

Plaint over, 248 

Seat of Church, 198, 365 

Tradition of, 256 
Jn, Gospel of, x 

Eschatology, 413 f., 428 f. 



INDEX 



531 



Order, 5 

Son of Man section, 358 f. 

, Revelation of, 4, 55, 73, 427, 

454 

Johanan b. Zacchai, 71, 131, 174 
John (Apostle), 4, 457, 485, 487, 490- 
493, 517 

Baptist, 102, 193 

, Disciples of, 207 

The Elder, 3, 7, 13, 26, 28, 439 f. 

Judas Iscariot, 258, 493, 504 
Judgment (messianic), 412-435 
Day of, 75, 97, 344, 430 

Kingdom of heaven (God), 167, 341 

heaven, heirs of, 168, 231 n. 

David, 421 f., 432 

L (source), 106 ff., 241, 257, 359, 505 
(See also Lk) 

Stories of Women in, 110, 112 n. 

Story parables in, 109 
Law, Jesus and, 168, 348 ff. 

vs. Grace, 356 (See also Mk, 

Section on) 
Leaven (parable) (See Parables) 

of Pharisees, 511-517 

Leaving all, 238 

Levi vs. Matthew, 39 f., 59, 166 

Life of Christ, approach to, vii-x 

LIQHTPOOT, 439, 445, 453, 455 

Lk-Acts 

Date, 70 

Method, 80, 108 

Omissions, 110 f., 124, 399 

Order of, 105, 210 f. 

Perean section, 237 

Provenance, 32 f. 

Sources, 106, 111 

Story parables of, 109 

Woes on scribes and Pharisees, 515 
Loaves, Miracle of, 220-227 
Logia (the term), 443-451 

(individual) (See Sayings) 

LOISY, xii, 108 
Lord's Prayer, 141 

M (alleged factor) (See Proto-Mt) 
Magi and Star, 51, 58, 153 
Magians, 33, 151 f., 156 f. 
Mandeans, 21, 157 
Marcion, xvi, 4 n., 31, 48, 440, 450- 

466 
Mark (Evangelist), vii 



371 



Martyrdom, 198, 239, 369 

MARRIOTT, 122 

Matthew (Apostle), vii n., 4, 6, 10 f., 

26 f., 45 
Title, 41-45 
MCNEILE, 11, 17, 64, 172 f., 176 f., 181, 

196, 258 

MICKLEM, 12, 83-85 
Miracles, 187-196, 362, 369-374 

(individual), Eutychus, 

of Loaves, 400, Red Sea, 372 
of healing, 86, 190, 362, 391 
of authority, 190 f. 
of exorcism, 110 
Mission (Sending) of Twelve, 77, 129, 

196 f. 

Mk (Gospel) 
Endings, 251 ff. 
Priority, 9 ff ., Proto-Mk, 7, Purpose, 

166 

Use of S, 168 
Section on Call of Fishermen, 170 

Exile, 219-221, 237, 398 

Jerusalem, 67 f., 245 

Law vs. Grace, 127 f., 239, 

348-351, 356 

Opposition, 383 

Perean Journey, 238 f . 



MOFFATT, J., 8, 92, 264 
MOORE, G. F., 133 f. 
Mt (Gospel) vs. Lk, 113 

Abbreviations, 85 

Anti-Judaism, xvi 

Apocalyptic trend, 413 

Canonization, 50-61 

Conditions of time, 20, 75 

Date, 63, 79, 199 

Dissemination, 20 

Factors (Q, N, etc.), 506 f. 

Formulas, 138 

Language, 134 f., 158 f., 496-504 

Neo-legalism, 88 

Omissions, 85, 105-119 

Phraseology, 132 f., 139-142 

Preamble, 145-164 

Priority, xiii, 7, 10 ff. 

Provenance, 11, 19 

Redactional Freedom, 97 

traits, 131-142 

Scripture quotations, 11, 136, 157 

Sondergut (P), 120-130, 140 

Structure, xiv, 81-85, 161, 170 

Supplements, 129, 155 

Ten Mighty Works, 110, 170 



532 



INDEX 



Title, 19, 27 ff., 37 
Use of Mk, 80-90 
Mystery, Hiding of the, 204 f., 375-389 

N (factor) xii, 12, 17, 145-164, 499- 

504, 507 
Nativity, 130, 148 f. 

Date of, 53 

Disputes on, 59, 114 

Ignatius on, 30 

Legends of, 152-154 
Nazarenes (sect), 17, 21, 43, 154, 157, 

161-164, 220 n., 478 ff. 
Neo-Iegalism, 47 
NESTLE, 152 f. 
New Torah section, 176-183, 342, 509 

(See also Antitheses) 
NORDEN, 123, 151-203 
NORK, 121 n. 

Oral tradition, xiii, 72, 98 f., 129, 507 
Order of material, gnomic vs. bio- 
graphic, 98, 102 

in Jn, 5 

in Lk, 105 

in Mk, 5, 7, 188 f. 

in Mt, 4G, 80-86 

in S., 101 
in Four-gospel canon, 48 

Parables, 94 f., 126, 208-217 

(classes) 

of Judgment, 97, 126, 130, 426 f. 
of P mt , 20 

of Watchfulness, 246, 249 
Story parables, 99, 109, 127, 130 
Vineyard parables, 116, 243 
(individual) 



Builders on Sand, 343 
Closing Door, 126, 184 
Dissatisfied Wage-earners, 127 
Entrusted Funds, 94 f . 
Good Samaritan, 359 
Importunate Friend, 108 

Widow, 109 

Leaven and Mustard Seed, 210, 

215 

Lost Sheep, 234 
Patient Husbandman, 85, 97 
Prodigal Son, 112, 128, 243 
Slighted Invitation, 65 f ., 94 f. 
Sower, 208 f. 
Strong Man Spoiled, 214 
Treasure and Pearl, 121, 129, 216 



Unforgiving Servant, 128, 407 
Usurping Husbandmen, 243, 246 
Wedding Garment, 72 
Paschal controversy, 56, 465 
Passion narratives 

in Mt, 114 

in S., 115 f. , 

Perean ministry, 237, 400 
Pericope Adulterae, 86, 112, 486 f., 491 
Persecution, 77, 198 f., 200, 368, 469 
Peter (Apostle), viii, 7, 224, 229 f., 
352 f., 401-403, 447, 517 

Authority to bind and loose, 410 

Appearance to, 253 

Confession of Christ, 404 

Rebuked by Paul, 403 
Petrine Supplements, 222-230, 500, 

503 

PFLEIDERER, 70 
Pharisees, 512-517 
Philip (Evangelist), 3, 36, 106 
PLUMMER, 28 f. 
Poly carp (bishop), 56 f. 
Preamble (of Mt), 113, 145-164 
Preaching (missionary), 145, 166 f. 
Priority (of Mt), 7-10 

(of Mk), 192 ff. 

Proto-Lk, 106 f., 505 
Proto-Mt, xiii, 173 

Soltau's, 157-160 

Streeter's (M), 122, 173, 505 f. 
Purity (ritual) (See Clean and Unclean) 

Q and S distinguished, vi-xiii 

Extent of, 91-104, 124 ff. 

Order of, 99-102 

Reconstructions, 93 

Scripture quotations, 137, 470-477 

Use in Mt's Book III, 205-215 
Quartodecimanism, 56, 465 
Quietus, 16 
Quotations (Scripture) 

in Mt, 126, 135 f., 157 

in N. (Reflection citations), 137, 
159 f., 195 

in S., 137, 470-477 

Repentance (the Great), 376, 392 
Resurrection (See Appearances) 
Reward, 238, 349, 356, 509 
Rich Enquirer, 88, 503 

in Ev. Naz., 89 
ROBERTSON, J. M., 12 n. 



INDEX 



533 



ROBINSON, J. A., 129 n. 

Rome, 33, 35, 57, 229 
Church practice at, 409 
Council of, 120 A.D., 42, 51-60 

S. (source) 

Distinguished from Q, xiii 

Arrangement in Mt, 206-215 

Christology, 395 ff. 

Contents, 105, 115-119, 177 f., 
205 ff., 400 

Origin, 36 ff., 383 f. 

Passion story, 117 f., 126, 257 

Scripture quotations, 470-477 
Sabbath conflicts, 215 f ., 350 
SANDAY, 83 
Sayings vs. discourses, 91 f ., 107 f., 

250 
(individual) 

Celibacy (eunuchs), 124, 241 

Effect of Baptist, 94, 102 

Forgiveness, 126 

Little ones, 253, 405 

Savorless Salt, 103 

Spiritual Kin, 166 

Thrones of Judgment, 94, 115-126 

SCHECHTEE, S., 153 

SCHLATTER, 7 n., 9 n., 439, 496-504 

SCHLEIERMACHER, xii, 444 

SCHMIDTKE, 471, 479 ff. 

SCHMIEDEL, 447 

Sending (See Mission) 

Sepulchre stories, 259 

Serapion, 16, 44 

Sermon on Mount (See Discourses) 

SODEN v., 70 f., 363 n. 

Solomon (of Ecclesiastes), 108 

(model of wisdom), 395 

SOLTAU, 130, 135, 157-160, 470 ff., 500 

Spirit, The, 197, 213, 255, 388-394 

Spiritual Kin, 167, 169, 206 f. 

STANTON, 9, 33, 40-45, 176, 341, 450 

Stater (coin), 36, 156, 228 

STREETER, 10, 18 f., 31-33, 36, 52, 97, 
99, 111, 122, 155, 173, 502, 505 ff. 

Stumbling vs. Receiving, 124, 230-233, 
405, 411 

Supper of Farewell (See Covenant Sup- 
per) 

Symbols, marginal, 264 

Synoptic problem, ix, 8 f., 505 



Syriac synchronisms, 50 f. 
Syrophoenician woman (See Canaanite) 

Targums and targuming, 13 f., 21-23, 

27,153,501 
Tatian, 16 
TAYLOR, V., 116 
Temple 

Debates in, 243 

Forsaken, 248 

Profanation, 77 

Purging, 244 

Tax, 228 

Triumphal entry into, 242 
Temptations, 160, 170, 345 
Testimonia, xv, 160, 449, 500 
- Thanksgiving for Revelation, 396 
Thaumaturgy, 374 
Toleration, 233, 404 f. 
Transfiguration, 146, 404 
Tribulation (The Great), 68, 77, 245, 
368, 468 f. 

Unity (of Church), 231 f., 397-411 

VERNON-BARTLET (See BARTLET) 

Virgin birth (See Nativity) 

Vocation (See Christ, Baptism and 

Vocation) 
VOLZ, P., 151 

Wedding garment (See Parables) 
WEISS, B., 106-108, 115, 117, 128, 506 
WELLHAUSEN, 101, 106 
WERNLE, 41, 92, 95, 115, 133, 157, 160 
Widow's Mites, 85 f ., 244, 487 

Son, 109-111 

WINDISCH, 389 

Wisdom logia, 123, 203, 247, 377, 395 f . 

Children of, 209 

Invitation of, 123, 212 

Spirit of, 383 f. 
Woman (adulterous) (See Pericope 

Adulterae) 

Women, stories of, 110-112 
Woes (See Discourses) 
Word-counting method, 93-99 

ZAHN, 7, 9 f., 12 f., 17, 25-27, 39 ff ., 51, 

217, 498 
Zealots, 422 f. 



-7 //:? -'<::>